Honestly, these attempts to keep the right out of power are literally insane and self harming. Remainery 2nd vote madness
eg Hitler won fair and square in 1933 and keeping him out of power “coz he looks a bit dodgy” would have been crazy - and also counter productive. He then went on to stabilise the German economy, modernise the transport system (eg autobahns), host a great Olympics, and generally revitalise the whole nation. Yes he let things get out of hand in the 1940s, to an extent, but that’s true of all parties that stay too long in power. They get stale and run out of ideas. Hitler was no different
There's a counterfactual where Hitler dies in 1938 after the Anschluss with Austria but before the really naughty stuff started. He would probably be remembered as a great German who saved the nation from chaos (and communism), got the nation going again and revitalised German pride. And never forget that for very many Germans, a lot of the bad stuff that happened would have been stopped if only the Fuhrer knew, such was his image even quite deep into the war.
Probably true. Even worse would be if he died just after beating France. That would build a Nazi myth that would endure.
On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.
I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.
I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice
What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.
If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years
Take them on head on.
We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.
The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.
We live in a democracy and as such we cannot chose to overthrow it no matter how much we disagree
The question in that scenario is just why all those you mentioned did not win the argument
The possibility of a Farage surge is why I have mixed thoughts about Starmer.
While I have little doubt that Angela Rayner would - being red-haired, passionate, leftish, etc - do much better in rallying the troops and leading the charge in an election against, say the Tories.
But what if there is a real prospect of Farage in power? Then, I suspect, all those horrified at the prospect (which is very different from the return of the Tories) would very likely rally more easily to a more moderate Labour option even if the person concerned is a bit "meh". Starmer fits the bill. A known quantity: dull but safe.
The Labour position is stronger than the 34% indicates - that was due to the inevitability of the Tory defeat, leading to a low turnout and a drift to the Greens, various Indys, etc. They likely would revert to type faced with the Faragists.
I just do not see Farage gaining the support to win a GE but as I said to @Shecorns88 you have to win the argument not subvert democracy as he/she ludicrously suggested
We subverted democracy in technical terms with the Government of National Unity in 1939 to 1945 did we not.
Please read what I have suggested.
Not a 10 year Labour Govt but a genuine Government of national unity
No you are not
You suggested an action to deny the democratic process because you do not like the possible result
Frankly you do not do yourself any favours with this nonsense
On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.
I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.
I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice
What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.
If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years
Take them on head on.
We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.
The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.
We live in a democracy and as such we cannot chose to overthrow it no matter how much we disagree
The question in that scenario is just why all those you mentioned did not win the argument
I'd agree 100% in all circumstances besides this.
Farage is backed by dirty money from Putin, from the excesses of Bannon and Putin
This is not home grown Fascism like we saw from NF / BNP this is foreign funded Facism imported in to the UK to support Tommy Robinson and Andrew Tate.
Farage is Farage a spiv chancer ready to head up any anti democratic bandwagon
He has a window of opportunity with Trump and Musk in Washington on power and before Putin wanes.
He would destroy democracy in one of the great democracies.
We postponed democracy for 6 years 1939 to 1945 to fight for our freedoms and may need to do so again.
We can all agree or disagree across the spectrum when fundamentally decent people challenge for power, however misguided we may think they are or not
However the threat we now face from foreign funded Fascism under the guise of Reform is greater than at any time since 1939. Greater than any threat from Communism, greater than any threat from Islam.
Trump and Putin have their finger on the majority of nuclear arms, they have allowed Musk to control the heavens....
The threat is very very real
Does anyone seriously believe this Country would be safe under a Reform Government.
It would be a fascist dystopia hell. We had a glimpse of it on the streets of Lancashire, Tamworth and other places in the summer.
I'll say nothing else about this ..
I just hope I'm wrong
You cannot pick and chose under a democracy
I get what you're saying, but maybe you could've phrased it better? Picking and choosing is literally what you do under a democracy, after all.
On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.
I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.
I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice
What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.
If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years
Take them on head on.
We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.
The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.
We live in a democracy and as such we cannot chose to overthrow it no matter how much we disagree
The question in that scenario is just why all those you mentioned did not win the argument
The possibility of a Farage surge is why I have mixed thoughts about Starmer.
While I have little doubt that Angela Rayner would - being red-haired, passionate, leftish, etc - do much better in rallying the troops and leading the charge in an election against, say the Tories.
But what if there is a real prospect of Farage in power? Then, I suspect, all those horrified at the prospect (which is very different from the return of the Tories) would very likely rally more easily to a more moderate Labour option even if the person concerned is a bit "meh". Starmer fits the bill. A known quantity: dull but safe.
The Labour position is stronger than the 34% indicates - that was due to the inevitability of the Tory defeat, leading to a low turnout and a drift to the Greens, various Indys, etc. They likely would revert to type faced with the Faragists.
I just do not see Farage gaining the support to win a GE but as I said to @Shecorns88 you have to win the argument not subvert democracy as he/she ludicrously suggested
We subverted democracy in technical terms with the Government of National Unity in 1939 to 1945 did we not.
Please read what I have suggested.
Not a 10 year Labour Govt but a genuine Government of national unity
What a great idea for a thread. A fantasy centrist Dad cabinet for a govt of National Unity.
There would have to be a role for Rory Stewart and Caroline Lucas as well. Two titans sadly not on the stage anymore.
Why not write an article and pitch it.
Your Bestie Jess could get a plum job to match her intellect and gravitas.
"Putin’s regime is not yet at [economic collapse] but it would only take one more change in the Middle East to bring matters to a head. If the Saudis again decide to flood the world with cheap crude to recoup market share – as many predict – oil will fall below $40 and Russia will spin out of economic control.
The Ukraine war may end in Riyadh."
AEP - Telegraph
It's a little more complicated than that, because while Saudi could probably add about one million barrels a day to production, that will have an impact on drilling activity in the US. (Plus, of course, there's refinery capacity to think about.)
With that said, a million barrels a day of incremental crude would almost certainly push prices down meaningfully. It would also make it harder for Russia to offer meaningful discounts to the Indians and Chinese.
Russia's financial situation would be meaningfully impacted by such a move.
HOWEVER.
Why would Saudi do such a thing? Russia, while not a member of OPEC, has had friendly relations with them, and has - from time to time - reduced production in concert with them to lift global oil prices. Is there any guarantee a new Russian regime would do similarly? ON the other hand a Russian collapse would almost certainly result in a near term reduction in Russian oil exports, which would probably be a benefit to OPEC.
On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.
I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.
I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice
What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.
If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years
Take them on head on.
We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.
The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.
We live in a democracy and as such we cannot chose to overthrow it no matter how much we disagree
The question in that scenario is just why all those you mentioned did not win the argument
I'd agree 100% in all circumstances besides this.
Farage is backed by dirty money from Putin, from the excesses of Bannon and Putin
This is not home grown Fascism like we saw from NF / BNP this is foreign funded Facism imported in to the UK to support Tommy Robinson and Andrew Tate.
Farage is Farage a spiv chancer ready to head up any anti democratic bandwagon
He has a window of opportunity with Trump and Musk in Washington on power and before Putin wanes.
He would destroy democracy in one of the great democracies.
We postponed democracy for 6 years 1939 to 1945 to fight for our freedoms and may need to do so again.
We can all agree or disagree across the spectrum when fundamentally decent people challenge for power, however misguided we may think they are or not
However the threat we now face from foreign funded Fascism under the guise of Reform is greater than at any time since 1939. Greater than any threat from Communism, greater than any threat from Islam.
Trump and Putin have their finger on the majority of nuclear arms, they have allowed Musk to control the heavens....
The threat is very very real
Does anyone seriously believe this Country would be safe under a Reform Government.
It would be a fascist dystopia hell. We had a glimpse of it on the streets of Lancashire, Tamworth and other places in the summer.
I'll say nothing else about this ..
I just hope I'm wrong
You cannot pick and chose under a democracy
I get what you're saying, but maybe you could've phrased it better? Picking and choosing is literally what you do under a democracy, after all.
Do I get a pass because I am old !!!!!
No you get a great big clap on the back because it was enormously amusing
This explains why I haven’t met many people who approve of the Labour government. They barely exist
You’re certainly not going to find them in France or Colombia or Cambodia or suchlike
Why do you think I go to these places?
Money, mainly.
Actually - and sincerely - it isn’t. It’s a factor but way down the list. The reason I travel a lot is
1. I love it 2. It stops me being bored (see item 1) 3. I get to do it for free 4. I get sent to amazing places 5. I get to avoid British weather 6. I get paid
This is a very interesting read. The proposals are pretty well tailor-made for the possibility of CPO-ing green or grey belt land, and building well over half a million houses, quickly.
The schemes would also generate somewhere between £50bn and £100bn in surplus value.
It mandates trams. There's nothing a tram can't do that a bus can't do quicker and cheaper, and they have electric buses now with batteries.
Much as I love "createstreets", I cannot share its approval of buildings over three stories. A building should be low enough for an old lady to get to the top floor with a stick, and for six men to carry her coffin down when she dies. Even the Soviets worked that out.
Only 15% of us live in flats (compared with 60% in Germany). There are more than enough bungalows to go around for older people. Or people with disabilities get first dibs on ground floor flats.
Trams are great in built up areas because they can load people much more quickly than a bus, enjoy prioritised signals etc. You don't have charging/battery issues either.
Because buses don't actual travel that many miles in a day, batteries aren't a problem. Interestingly, there is a move to battery trams - getting rid of the overhead wires (for at least a portion of the journeys) is a massive saving. Both in money and time to get approval/construct.
There have also been some interesting experiments in the design of lengthened buses, with each segment using smart steering to follow the previous one.
The cost per mile of building tram lines is insane - and must be factored into the overall costs. Yes, more effective once running, but with the same money, you could line the roads with electric buses.
Yes; I was wondering about battery trams the other day. You wouldn't necessarily want to remove all of the overhead electrical distribution, but being able to serve less dense areas, or to reduce maintenance costs while increasing reliability make the idea a really interesting one.
Honestly, these attempts to keep the right out of power are literally insane and self harming. Remainery 2nd vote madness
eg Hitler won fair and square in 1933 and keeping him out of power “coz he looks a bit dodgy” would have been crazy - and also counter productive. He then went on to stabilise the German economy, modernise the transport system (eg autobahns), host a great Olympics, and generally revitalise the whole nation. Yes he let things get out of hand in the 1940s, to an extent, but that’s true of all parties that stay too long in power. They get stale and run out of ideas. Hitler was no different
There's a counterfactual where Hitler dies in 1938 after the Anschluss with Austria but before the really naughty stuff started. He would probably be remembered as a great German who saved the nation from chaos (and communism), got the nation going again and revitalised German pride. And never forget that for very many Germans, a lot of the bad stuff that happened would have been stopped if only the Fuhrer knew, such was his image even quite deep into the war.
That's an odd view of the "really naughty stuff". Nazi concentration camps had started in 1933. Dachau opened 22 March 1933. The Nuremberg Laws were passed in 1935, restricting Jews' citizenship rights and banning relationships between Jews and non-Jews. The expropriation of Jewish businesses began in 1937. Kristallnacht came after Anschluss, but there were plenty of smaller pogroms before then.
Polling news. More In Common's poll for The Rest is Entertainment finds that as potential Prime Ministers, Martin Lewis beats Jeremy Clarkson by 73 to 24 per cent, although Marina thinks in a presidential-style campaign, Jezza would pull ahead. Bad news for Kemi & Keir follows!
And MiC also polled on Christmas films, and their political crossovers.
I have just been asked, in all sincerity, and in relation to a conversation which arose organically, by a younger colleague, presumably in the expectation that, as a man of the world of a certain age that I would know this, what the difference is between a stoat and a weasel.
Other men of a certain age – i.e. everybody here – will, I’m sure, recognise the relish with which I savoured the moment before slamming the ball gleefully into the open goal in front of me.
It was all I could do not to pull my jumper over my head and wheel around the office in celebration. Days in the office rarely get much better than this. Friends, I feel so ALIVE.
My younger colleagues celebrated by rolling their eyes in a way I have chosen to interpret as “indulgently.”
What is the difference between a joist and a girder? What is the difference between an enzyme and a hormone?
This is a question that I thought yesterday when Israel took out the Syrian navy
For such a small country how is it possible to use so much weaponry and keep a constant supply
1) stockpile. 2) use orders of magnitude fewer weapons by using expensive smart bombs, rather then carpet bombing with 'dumb' bombs/shells. 3) surge manufacturing.
If working in the public sector is so lucrative and such a piece of piss to do, why don't you all quit your shit finance/legal/consulting/management/self publishing author jobs and get on the gravy train?
Who said it was easy?
I will say, though, that the supremely high level of job security sounds nice, given a mix of AI and tech giant algorithm fiddling has rather shafted me this year.
Oh, and on 'easy': getting pay rises certainly become that way under Starmer.
Genuinely, what would you pay a nurse? What should the person giving you CPR in the back of an ambulance be on an hour? How much is it worth to you to get dragged out of your burning house at 3 in the morning? Why shouldn't train drivers earn a good wage? Is emptying bins not worthy of a decent pay packet? What about the office staff who keep all the plates spinning in the background? You won't do these jobs, but don't want to pay the people who will do them. Why?
What is a decent pay packet? Genuine question - how can we define that?
It doesn't look like anyone has had a go at this yet. I'll stick my neck out and suggest that for someone in mid-career in a job with some responsibility or skill required, it ought to be possible to earn enough to house and feed a family.
SO, for someone where I live that means per month: Rent 1600 Other bills 400 Food and groceries 800 Kids clothing activities etc 500 Car 250 Personal clothes etc x 2 200 Total after tax £3750 - what's that as a Gross salary, about £60k?
Note - no allowance for leisure spending or holidays.
Also note: my wife (when I had one) would have far exceeded the £200 per month joint personal allowance on her own. But she did work part time to fit around childcare as many mothers so supported herself and I think that's a reasonable assumption to make, but £100 doesn't make a lot of difference
This is based very much on my own historic records, for most of the time when my children were younger money was tight and I had to budget to the penny to work out what was unavoidable. You can quibble on the odd 50 or hundred maybe but that's my ballpark.
The other thing I would note is that housing costs are roughly 50% of that - if property wasn't so ridiculously expensive then a lot of people would be a lot better off.
Build, build, build.
Then build some more!
It really is the Housing Theory of Everything at this point, there’s still way too many people chasing way too few houses.
Scene : Malmesbury's Britain
Husband: Disaster! Wife: What? Husband: Daisy won a house - the coupon was in her cereal box! Wife: Oh God. We have 17 houses already. What's this one worth? Husband: 5 bedroom in Cornwall. I checked. Someone might give us 99p on eBay. I asked the tramp outside Tesco - he has 8 houses already. Bloody housing surplus.
It is a fact universally acknowledged that as soon as someone actually acquires a property they rapidly lose interest in cheaper house prices. No-one wants to see their £500k 'investment' reduced overnight to £300k because all the adjacent fields have been built on. Human nature, innit?
Fortunately for these newly-enfranchised home owners, developers are unlikely to increase their building rate because (a) it would drive up the cost of labour and materials while (b) reducing the selling price. Sooner or later they will be operating at a loss. Sooner is my guess. In fact, developers already own vast tracts of near-urban farmland with outline planning permission (their infamous land bank) and the reason they're not in a hurry to build is simple economics of the kind BartholomewRoberts frequently espouses. It's nothing to do with a sclerotic planning system.
Houses cost money to build and to maintain. The theory behind the postwar social housing boom was that the hard-working occupants would eventually cover the building cost out of their wages and even use their artisanal skills to do a bit of maintenance from time to time. This simple equation doesn't work with an indigent population dependent on benefits for their rent and without any spare cash (or inclination) to paint the door, unblock the drain or fix a broken window. The corollary of 'build build build' is 'tax tax tax'.
I was picking through some Scottish housebuilding data last week - it's completely bonkers.
Last 10 years, number of homes has increased by 6%, population up 2%. Nominal wages up 25%, house prices up 36%.
Midlothian is our YIMBYiest council - 15% increase in houses. Yet also has the highest increase in house prices at 67%. Meanwhile Inverclyde has only built 1% more, and house prices only up 13%.
Your regular reminder that a percentage increase doesn't necassarily make up for a shortfall.
But it's not working, is it? There is a strong correlation between councils building houses and house prices going up faster than elsewhere.
In Clackmannanshire, they've built 5% more houses, the population is flat at 0%, and prices have gone up 53%. In the Western Isles, the population has fallen by 5%, they've built 3% more houses, but prices are up 44%.
There are more houses being built where there is the greatest demand for houses, but not enough houses anywhere, and so prices still increasing most where there's the greatest demand.
That doesn't seem counterintuitive to me.
The housing market has been so dysfunctional for so long that there's a huge amount of pent-up demand.
That's true, particularly in Scotland. The underlying issue is that everyone wants to live in or around Edinburgh.
But it still doesn't explain why house prices are increasing so quickly even where there are more houses being built and the population (and the number of households) is falling. The only area this isn't happening is around Aberdeen.
There are other factors at play as well, such as the increased costs of building new homes due to regulations, materials, and labour - and also the availability of mortgage finance.
If banks moved from lending 4x to lending 6x income, prices would rise with all other factors held constant.
I'm not convinced that the cost of building houses has had much of an impact at all, with the price largely set by this apparently insatiable demand.
I also think the market is extremely sticky and inefficient, with total house sales down significantly over the last 20 years, even as the number of houses has increased faster the population. That means new builds are a much larger proportion of those being sold than previously.
The combination of LBTT, perverse council tax bandings, WFH, CGT and IHT exemptions makes moving house deeply unattractive for most, particularly when downsizing.
Not IHT - there is provision for downsizing as one gets old. Or at least IHT shouldn't be a worry.
People (as so often) may be getting unnecessarily worked up about it, like the elderly relative who was getting all panicky about IHT (about ten years too late, IMV, but I didn't point that out): I had to sit him down, point out the values of his house and his savings, and explain in words of fewer than four letters that IHT was not payable on his e3state .;..
The problem with IHT is not so much the detail but the vibe.
This explains why I haven’t met many people who approve of the Labour government. They barely exist
You’re certainly not going to find them in France or Colombia or Cambodia or suchlike
Why do you think I go to these places?
Money, mainly.
Actually - and sincerely - it isn’t. It’s a factor but way down the list. The reason I travel a lot is
1. I love it 2. It stops me being bored (see item 1) 3. I get to do it for free 4. I get sent to amazing places 5. I get to avoid British weather 6. I get paid
Fair enough but arguably 3 counts as 'for the money', as you would otherwise need to pay for these trips, and some of them if not all seem rather high end (have thought of slumming it for a few, perhaps Butlins at Minehead? To clear the palate?)
I have just been asked, in all sincerity, and in relation to a conversation which arose organically, by a younger colleague, presumably in the expectation that, as a man of the world of a certain age that I would know this, what the difference is between a stoat and a weasel.
Other men of a certain age – i.e. everybody here – will, I’m sure, recognise the relish with which I savoured the moment before slamming the ball gleefully into the open goal in front of me.
It was all I could do not to pull my jumper over my head and wheel around the office in celebration. Days in the office rarely get much better than this. Friends, I feel so ALIVE.
My younger colleagues celebrated by rolling their eyes in a way I have chosen to interpret as “indulgently.”
What is the difference between a joist and a girder? What is the difference between an enzyme and a hormone?
(both of these are jokes, btw)
What's the difference between a Buffalo and a Bison
Was wondering how long this one would take to come up!
Yes, having sex with a 17-year-old, even when consentual, is illegal in loads of places.
Also, criminal justice works differently in different countries.
The usual MO from Brits arrested in Dubai is to scream half a story at the Daily Mail, and hope the negative headlines can help the British Ambassador plead for clemency on the basis of the bad publicity. Sometimes it works, other times not.
The story just says a holiday romance, it doesn't go into any of the gruesome details. Sex with a minor is a different matter. The article says he is jailed over a holiday romance which seems pretty benign.
Over on mumsnet they're upset about it because the 17 year old involved was also a tourist from Britain, and her mother didn't contact the authorities in Dubai until they were back in London (so that her daughter wouldn't get in trouble for having sex out of marriage).
I think that puts a slightly different spin on things.
I think mumsnet has raised the right issue. The other issue is whether the 17 y.o. wanted to raise the issue. And finally, if you have a mum like that, why on earth are you telling her stuff about a young man you liked well enough at the time. Do they teach 17 yo girls nothing about how to shut up?
Maybe she walked in and discovered them humping ? The girl may not have told her but she found out inadvertently as seems to be the case quite a bit from Reddit threads about people found in the middle of the act.
Also, what would people say about a Thai bloke coming to the UK and shagging a 15 year old.
Although if she had gone back to another country it is unlikely it would meet the evidentiary requirements for a conviction.
"Putin’s regime is not yet at [economic collapse] but it would only take one more change in the Middle East to bring matters to a head. If the Saudis again decide to flood the world with cheap crude to recoup market share – as many predict – oil will fall below $40 and Russia will spin out of economic control.
Honestly, these attempts to keep the right out of power are literally insane and self harming. Remainery 2nd vote madness
eg Hitler won fair and square in 1933 and keeping him out of power “coz he looks a bit dodgy” would have been crazy - and also counter productive. He then went on to stabilise the German economy, modernise the transport system (eg autobahns), host a great Olympics, and generally revitalise the whole nation. Yes he let things get out of hand in the 1940s, to an extent, but that’s true of all parties that stay too long in power. They get stale and run out of ideas. Hitler was no different
There's a counterfactual where Hitler dies in 1938 after the Anschluss with Austria but before the really naughty stuff started. He would probably be remembered as a great German who saved the nation from chaos (and communism), got the nation going again and revitalised German pride. And never forget that for very many Germans, a lot of the bad stuff that happened would have been stopped if only the Fuhrer knew, such was his image even quite deep into the war.
That's an odd view of the "really naughty stuff". Nazi concentration camps had started in 1933. Dachau opened 22 March 1933. The Nuremberg Laws were passed in 1935, restricting Jews' citizenship rights and banning relationships between Jews and non-Jews. The expropriation of Jewish businesses began in 1937. Kristallnacht came after Anschluss, but there were plenty of smaller pogroms before then.
Again, as with leon, I think you are missing the tongue firmly in cheek. But even taking those points, I stand by what I said. A Hiltler heart attack and death as the border to Austria came down and he would be a hero in history. After all, even after all that we now know, there are still idiots who persist in trying suggest that Hitler never ordered the Holocaust etc.
This is a question that I thought yesterday when Israel took out the Syrian navy
For such a small country how is it possible to use so much weaponry and keep a constant supply
1) stockpile. 2) use orders of magnitude fewer weapons by using expensive smart bombs, rather then carpet bombing with 'dumb' bombs/shells. 3) surge manufacturing.
Yes but having visited Israel, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank it is a small country to do as you say and at a huge cost
Honestly, these attempts to keep the right out of power are literally insane and self harming. Remainery 2nd vote madness
eg Hitler won fair and square in 1933 and keeping him out of power “coz he looks a bit dodgy” would have been crazy - and also counter productive. He then went on to stabilise the German economy, modernise the transport system (eg autobahns), host a great Olympics, and generally revitalise the whole nation. Yes he let things get out of hand in the 1940s, to an extent, but that’s true of all parties that stay too long in power. They get stale and run out of ideas. Hitler was no different
There's a counterfactual where Hitler dies in 1938 after the Anschluss with Austria but before the really naughty stuff started. He would probably be remembered as a great German who saved the nation from chaos (and communism), got the nation going again and revitalised German pride. And never forget that for very many Germans, a lot of the bad stuff that happened would have been stopped if only the Fuhrer knew, such was his image even quite deep into the war.
The mass re-armament of Germany that happened in the 1930s was mostly funded with by huge deficit spending backed mostly (but not exclusively) by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mefo_bills . By 1938 the government was officially spending 1.6 times it’s income, with much more funded by the circulating Mefo notes. A collapse in the value of these notes was inevitable: The only reason the German economy hadn’t already suffered rampant inflation was the total destruction of the labour movement by the Nazis, leaving workers unable to bid up their own pay in the face of a steady climb in shop prices.
Germany in 1938 was either going to suffer a terrible economic crisis or it was going to take all the weaponry it had spent the last ten years building & go to war. They had been planning for the latter for a decade: war was inevitable, Hitler or no Hitler.
I have just been asked, in all sincerity, and in relation to a conversation which arose organically, by a younger colleague, presumably in the expectation that, as a man of the world of a certain age that I would know this, what the difference is between a stoat and a weasel.
Other men of a certain age – i.e. everybody here – will, I’m sure, recognise the relish with which I savoured the moment before slamming the ball gleefully into the open goal in front of me.
It was all I could do not to pull my jumper over my head and wheel around the office in celebration. Days in the office rarely get much better than this. Friends, I feel so ALIVE.
My younger colleagues celebrated by rolling their eyes in a way I have chosen to interpret as “indulgently.”
What is the difference between a joist and a girder? What is the difference between an enzyme and a hormone?
(both of these are jokes, btw)
Go on...?
What is the difference between a joist and a girder? Joyce wrote Ulysses and Goethe wrote Faust What is the difference between an enzyme and a hormone? You can't make an en zyme but you can make a [Stop right there - Ed]
Honestly, these attempts to keep the right out of power are literally insane and self harming. Remainery 2nd vote madness
eg Hitler won fair and square in 1933 and keeping him out of power “coz he looks a bit dodgy” would have been crazy - and also counter productive. He then went on to stabilise the German economy, modernise the transport system (eg autobahns), host a great Olympics, and generally revitalise the whole nation. Yes he let things get out of hand in the 1940s, to an extent, but that’s true of all parties that stay too long in power. They get stale and run out of ideas. Hitler was no different
There's a counterfactual where Hitler dies in 1938 after the Anschluss with Austria but before the really naughty stuff started. He would probably be remembered as a great German who saved the nation from chaos (and communism), got the nation going again and revitalised German pride. And never forget that for very many Germans, a lot of the bad stuff that happened would have been stopped if only the Fuhrer knew, such was his image even quite deep into the war.
That's an odd view of the "really naughty stuff". Nazi concentration camps had started in 1933. Dachau opened 22 March 1933. The Nuremberg Laws were passed in 1935, restricting Jews' citizenship rights and banning relationships between Jews and non-Jews. The expropriation of Jewish businesses began in 1937. Kristallnacht came after Anschluss, but there were plenty of smaller pogroms before then.
Again, as with leon, I think you are missing the tongue firmly in cheek. But even taking those points, I stand by what I said. A Hiltler heart attack and death as the border to Austria came down and he would be a hero in history. After all, even after all that we now know, there are still idiots who persist in trying suggest that Hitler never ordered the Holocaust etc.
Remember, he came within 15 minutes of being killed by explosion, before any of the really bad warmongering stuff even happened.
This explains why I haven’t met many people who approve of the Labour government. They barely exist
You’re certainly not going to find them in France or Colombia or Cambodia or suchlike
Why do you think I go to these places?
Money, mainly.
Actually - and sincerely - it isn’t. It’s a factor but way down the list. The reason I travel a lot is
1. I love it 2. It stops me being bored (see item 1) 3. I get to do it for free 4. I get sent to amazing places 5. I get to avoid British weather 6. I get paid
Fair enough but arguably 3 counts as 'for the money', as you would otherwise need to pay for these trips, and some of them if not all seem rather high end (have thought of slumming it for a few, perhaps Butlins at Minehead? To clear the palate?)
They’re really not all high end; they’re quite mixed and sometimes seriously primitive or even dangerous
eg Ukraine
That’s how I cleanse my palate! Constant luxury would be seriously boring. I’ve done dozens if not hundreds of luxury hotels and they tend to blur after a while - they offer the same tip-top comforts
Indeed a stand out five star is quite unusual (but brilliant when you encounter them)
Was wondering how long this one would take to come up!
Yes, having sex with a 17-year-old, even when consentual, is illegal in loads of places.
Also, criminal justice works differently in different countries.
The usual MO from Brits arrested in Dubai is to scream half a story at the Daily Mail, and hope the negative headlines can help the British Ambassador plead for clemency on the basis of the bad publicity. Sometimes it works, other times not.
The story just says a holiday romance, it doesn't go into any of the gruesome details. Sex with a minor is a different matter. The article says he is jailed over a holiday romance which seems pretty benign.
Over on mumsnet they're upset about it because the 17 year old involved was also a tourist from Britain, and her mother didn't contact the authorities in Dubai until they were back in London (so that her daughter wouldn't get in trouble for having sex out of marriage).
I think that puts a slightly different spin on things.
I think mumsnet has raised the right issue. The other issue is whether the 17 y.o. wanted to raise the issue. And finally, if you have a mum like that, why on earth are you telling her stuff about a young man you liked well enough at the time. Do they teach 17 yo girls nothing about how to shut up?
Maybe she walked in and discovered them humping ? The girl may not have told her but she found out inadvertently as seems to be the case quite a bit from Reddit threads about people found in the middle of the act.
Also, what would people say about a Thai bloke coming to the UK and shagging a 15 year old.
Although if she had gone back to another country it is unlikely it would meet the evidentiary requirements for a conviction.
Which seems so much cope. The claims - such as all the US's carriers gone immediately - would see repercussions. That's what Russia and their propagandists - child-molester Scott Ritter amongst them - forget. They seem to think Russia can use weapons and there will be no consequences. Because Russia is stronk or something.
This is a question that I thought yesterday when Israel took out the Syrian navy
For such a small country how is it possible to use so much weaponry and keep a constant supply
Israel gets a lot of ammunition and military support from the US. They've also had a few recent decades experience of the importance of having a strong military, and so have prioritised ensuring that they have supplies for this sort of situation.
Was wondering how long this one would take to come up!
Yes, having sex with a 17-year-old, even when consentual, is illegal in loads of places.
Also, criminal justice works differently in different countries.
The usual MO from Brits arrested in Dubai is to scream half a story at the Daily Mail, and hope the negative headlines can help the British Ambassador plead for clemency on the basis of the bad publicity. Sometimes it works, other times not.
The story just says a holiday romance, it doesn't go into any of the gruesome details. Sex with a minor is a different matter. The article says he is jailed over a holiday romance which seems pretty benign.
Over on mumsnet they're upset about it because the 17 year old involved was also a tourist from Britain, and her mother didn't contact the authorities in Dubai until they were back in London (so that her daughter wouldn't get in trouble for having sex out of marriage).
I think that puts a slightly different spin on things.
I think mumsnet has raised the right issue. The other issue is whether the 17 y.o. wanted to raise the issue. And finally, if you have a mum like that, why on earth are you telling her stuff about a young man you liked well enough at the time. Do they teach 17 yo girls nothing about how to shut up?
Maybe she walked in and discovered them humping ? The girl may not have told her but she found out inadvertently as seems to be the case quite a bit from Reddit threads about people found in the middle of the act.
Also, what would people say about a Thai bloke coming to the UK and shagging a 15 year old.
I would expect the difference in age would partly colour peoples views. A couple of years, like in this case, less of an issue than, say, the age of the sort of man who goes from the UK to Thailand for that sort of thing.
This is a question that I thought yesterday when Israel took out the Syrian navy
For such a small country how is it possible to use so much weaponry and keep a constant supply
1) stockpile. 2) use orders of magnitude fewer weapons by using expensive smart bombs, rather then carpet bombing with 'dumb' bombs/shells. 3) surge manufacturing.
Yes but having visited Israel, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank it is a small country to do as you say and at a huge cost
Indeed. But the modern state of Israel has been in existence for over seventy years, and has been on a war footing almost permanently ever since.
Honestly, these attempts to keep the right out of power are literally insane and self harming. Remainery 2nd vote madness
eg Hitler won fair and square in 1933 and keeping him out of power “coz he looks a bit dodgy” would have been crazy - and also counter productive. He then went on to stabilise the German economy, modernise the transport system (eg autobahns), host a great Olympics, and generally revitalise the whole nation. Yes he let things get out of hand in the 1940s, to an extent, but that’s true of all parties that stay too long in power. They get stale and run out of ideas. Hitler was no different
There's a counterfactual where Hitler dies in 1938 after the Anschluss with Austria but before the really naughty stuff started. He would probably be remembered as a great German who saved the nation from chaos (and communism), got the nation going again and revitalised German pride. And never forget that for very many Germans, a lot of the bad stuff that happened would have been stopped if only the Fuhrer knew, such was his image even quite deep into the war.
That's an odd view of the "really naughty stuff". Nazi concentration camps had started in 1933. Dachau opened 22 March 1933. The Nuremberg Laws were passed in 1935, restricting Jews' citizenship rights and banning relationships between Jews and non-Jews. The expropriation of Jewish businesses began in 1937. Kristallnacht came after Anschluss, but there were plenty of smaller pogroms before then.
I’d also add the Night of the Long Knives (1933) & the officially mandated end to the rule of law that followed to post-hoc justify it & make extra-judicial state killing legal. Nazi Germany was already a totalitarian state at this point, but afterwards there was no pretending otherwise.
This is a question that I thought yesterday when Israel took out the Syrian navy
For such a small country how is it possible to use so much weaponry and keep a constant supply
1) stockpile. 2) use orders of magnitude fewer weapons by using expensive smart bombs, rather then carpet bombing with 'dumb' bombs/shells. 3) surge manufacturing.
Yes but having visited Israel, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank it is a small country to do as you say and at a huge cost
The Israeli economy is multiple times more effective than its neighbours. American aid helps, but look at the money that falls into the pit of the Egyptian economy from the same source.
In addition the Israeli military is actually capable. Books have been written on why the local dictatorships can't afford (in the political sense) to have effective militaries.
This explains why I haven’t met many people who approve of the Labour government. They barely exist
You’re certainly not going to find them in France or Colombia or Cambodia or suchlike
Why do you think I go to these places?
Money, mainly.
Actually - and sincerely - it isn’t. It’s a factor but way down the list. The reason I travel a lot is
1. I love it 2. It stops me being bored (see item 1) 3. I get to do it for free 4. I get sent to amazing places 5. I get to avoid British weather 6. I get paid
Fair enough but arguably 3 counts as 'for the money', as you would otherwise need to pay for these trips, and some of them if not all seem rather high end (have thought of slumming it for a few, perhaps Butlins at Minehead? To clear the palate?)
They’re really not all high end; they’re quite mixed and sometimes seriously primitive or even dangerous
eg Ukraine
That’s how I cleanse my palate! Constant luxury would be seriously boring. I’ve done dozens if not hundreds of luxury hotels and they tend to blur after a while - they offer the same tip-top comforts
Indeed a stand out five star is quite unusual (but brilliant when you encounter them)
Do the hotels you stay in know that you're from the Gazette? By which I mean when you stay in a lovely suite, is it likely to be extra lovely because they have prepared?
Which seems so much cope. The claims - such as all the US's carriers gone immediately - would see repercussions. That's what Russia and their propagandists - child-molester Scott Ritter amongst them - forget. They seem to think Russia can use weapons and there will be no consequences. Because Russia is stronk or something.
Why are you bothering with Twatter?
Big! Russian! Weapon! Stonk! World! has been the refrain for decades. Putin sits on the toilet, measuring his weapon all time....
This explains why I haven’t met many people who approve of the Labour government. They barely exist
You’re certainly not going to find them in France or Colombia or Cambodia or suchlike
Why do you think I go to these places?
Money, mainly.
Actually - and sincerely - it isn’t. It’s a factor but way down the list. The reason I travel a lot is
1. I love it 2. It stops me being bored (see item 1) 3. I get to do it for free 4. I get sent to amazing places 5. I get to avoid British weather 6. I get paid
Fair enough but arguably 3 counts as 'for the money', as you would otherwise need to pay for these trips, and some of them if not all seem rather high end (have thought of slumming it for a few, perhaps Butlins at Minehead? To clear the palate?)
They’re really not all high end; they’re quite mixed and sometimes seriously primitive or even dangerous
eg Ukraine
That’s how I cleanse my palate! Constant luxury would be seriously boring. I’ve done dozens if not hundreds of luxury hotels and they tend to blur after a while - they offer the same tip-top comforts
Indeed a stand out five star is quite unusual (but brilliant when you encounter them)
Do the hotels you stay in know that you're from the Gazette? By which I mean when you stay in a lovely suite, is it likely to be extra lovely because they have prepared?
Which seems so much cope. The claims - such as all the US's carriers gone immediately - would see repercussions. That's what Russia and their propagandists - child-molester Scott Ritter amongst them - forget. They seem to think Russia can use weapons and there will be no consequences. Because Russia is stronk or something.
Sounds like Russia will use the Oreshnik again in a couple of days. Wonder if they'll put any explosive on it this time?
This explains why I haven’t met many people who approve of the Labour government. They barely exist
You’re certainly not going to find them in France or Colombia or Cambodia or suchlike
Why do you think I go to these places?
Money, mainly.
Actually - and sincerely - it isn’t. It’s a factor but way down the list. The reason I travel a lot is
1. I love it 2. It stops me being bored (see item 1) 3. I get to do it for free 4. I get sent to amazing places 5. I get to avoid British weather 6. I get paid
Fair enough but arguably 3 counts as 'for the money', as you would otherwise need to pay for these trips, and some of them if not all seem rather high end (have thought of slumming it for a few, perhaps Butlins at Minehead? To clear the palate?)
They’re really not all high end; they’re quite mixed and sometimes seriously primitive or even dangerous
eg Ukraine
That’s how I cleanse my palate! Constant luxury would be seriously boring. I’ve done dozens if not hundreds of luxury hotels and they tend to blur after a while - they offer the same tip-top comforts
Indeed a stand out five star is quite unusual (but brilliant when you encounter them)
Do the hotels you stay in know that you're from the Gazette? By which I mean when you stay in a lovely suite, is it likely to be extra lovely because they have prepared?
Often, yes
Good for you obviously, but my god you must have to deal with the most extremes of oily people. Eek!
Honestly, these attempts to keep the right out of power are literally insane and self harming. Remainery 2nd vote madness
eg Hitler won fair and square in 1933 and keeping him out of power “coz he looks a bit dodgy” would have been crazy - and also counter productive. He then went on to stabilise the German economy, modernise the transport system (eg autobahns), host a great Olympics, and generally revitalise the whole nation. Yes he let things get out of hand in the 1940s, to an extent, but that’s true of all parties that stay too long in power. They get stale and run out of ideas. Hitler was no different
There's a counterfactual where Hitler dies in 1938 after the Anschluss with Austria but before the really naughty stuff started. He would probably be remembered as a great German who saved the nation from chaos (and communism), got the nation going again and revitalised German pride. And never forget that for very many Germans, a lot of the bad stuff that happened would have been stopped if only the Fuhrer knew, such was his image even quite deep into the war.
That's an odd view of the "really naughty stuff". Nazi concentration camps had started in 1933. Dachau opened 22 March 1933. The Nuremberg Laws were passed in 1935, restricting Jews' citizenship rights and banning relationships between Jews and non-Jews. The expropriation of Jewish businesses began in 1937. Kristallnacht came after Anschluss, but there were plenty of smaller pogroms before then.
Again, as with leon, I think you are missing the tongue firmly in cheek. But even taking those points, I stand by what I said. A Hiltler heart attack and death as the border to Austria came down and he would be a hero in history. After all, even after all that we now know, there are still idiots who persist in trying suggest that Hitler never ordered the Holocaust etc.
There are idiots who suggest many things. There is no need to encourage them. With a resurgence of fascism in the real world, personally, I think it is more helpful to take 1930s Germany seriously. Trump is proposing rounding people up in camps and deporting US citizens, which would put us around 1934?
Which seems so much cope. The claims - such as all the US's carriers gone immediately - would see repercussions. That's what Russia and their propagandists - child-molester Scott Ritter amongst them - forget. They seem to think Russia can use weapons and there will be no consequences. Because Russia is stronk or something.
Errr: isn't the difficult bit with carriers finding them?
There have been lots of weapons (including nuclear ones) that are pretty effective at destroying carriers. The difficult bit is finding the carrier group in an ocean of sea, and knowing exactly where it will be when your missile arrives there, and having the missile move at a speed that enables it to use sensors to maneuver.
Because the problem with hypersonic missiles and the like is that sensor performance is essentially destroyed by the act of travelling through the air at Mach 8 or whatever. So how can you see what it is that you want to hit?
Edit to add: that means that these missiles can be great at hitting ground based targets that don't move (hospitals! power stations!) but are rubbish at hitting moving targets. Even slowly moving ones.
Honestly, these attempts to keep the right out of power are literally insane and self harming. Remainery 2nd vote madness
eg Hitler won fair and square in 1933 and keeping him out of power “coz he looks a bit dodgy” would have been crazy - and also counter productive. He then went on to stabilise the German economy, modernise the transport system (eg autobahns), host a great Olympics, and generally revitalise the whole nation. Yes he let things get out of hand in the 1940s, to an extent, but that’s true of all parties that stay too long in power. They get stale and run out of ideas. Hitler was no different
There's a counterfactual where Hitler dies in 1938 after the Anschluss with Austria but before the really naughty stuff started. He would probably be remembered as a great German who saved the nation from chaos (and communism), got the nation going again and revitalised German pride. And never forget that for very many Germans, a lot of the bad stuff that happened would have been stopped if only the Fuhrer knew, such was his image even quite deep into the war.
The mass re-armament of Germany that happened in the 1930s was mostly funded with by huge deficit spending backed mostly (but not exclusively) by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mefo_bills . By 1938 the government was officially spending 1.6 times it’s income, with much more funded by the circulating Mefo notes. A collapse in the value of these notes was inevitable: The only reason the German economy hadn’t already suffered rampant inflation was the total destruction of the labour movement by the Nazis, leaving workers unable to bid up their own pay in the face of a steady climb in shop prices.
Germany in 1938 was either going to suffer a terrible economic crisis or it was going to take all the weaponry it had spent the last ten years building & go to war. They had been planning for the latter for a decade: war was inevitable, Hitler or no Hitler.
There is a theory that Schacht managed to convince Hitler that the economy was about to crash. Hitler's response was to go to war early, rather than Schacht's solution - reduce re-armament. So he started making moves in 1939 that he was planning for 1942 (when the re-armament was supposed to ready).
This caught other countries by surprise - they knew the german timetable. It was evident in the naval building program, which couldn't be hidden. For example, the Poles hadn't got their tanks yet (French), and the British plan of building up productivity capacity, *then* using mass production to build the latest weapons was caught in a mis-step.
Which seems so much cope. The claims - such as all the US's carriers gone immediately - would see repercussions. That's what Russia and their propagandists - child-molester Scott Ritter amongst them - forget. They seem to think Russia can use weapons and there will be no consequences. Because Russia is stronk or something.
Errr: isn't the difficult bit with carriers finding them?
There have been lots of weapons (including nuclear ones) that are pretty effective at destroying carriers. The difficult bit is finding the carrier group in an ocean of sea, and knowing exactly where it will be when your missile arrives there, and having the missile move at a speed that enables it to use sensors to maneuver.
Because the problem with hypersonic missiles and the like is that sensor performance is essentially destroyed by the act of travelling through the air at Mach 8 or whatever. So how can you see what it is that you want to hit?
Quite. And then there is the small, inconvenient fact that the Americans removed the restrictions on Aegis system to act an ABM system. And procured better missiles to go with it. Each ship, before deployment, practises shooting down ballistic missiles, and hypersonic targets.
Which seems so much cope. The claims - such as all the US's carriers gone immediately - would see repercussions. That's what Russia and their propagandists - child-molester Scott Ritter amongst them - forget. They seem to think Russia can use weapons and there will be no consequences. Because Russia is stronk or something.
Errr: isn't the difficult bit with carriers finding them?
There have been lots of weapons (including nuclear ones) that are pretty effective at destroying carriers. The difficult bit is finding the carrier group in an ocean of sea, and knowing exactly where it will be when your missile arrives there, and having the missile move at a speed that enables it to use sensors to maneuver.
Because the problem with hypersonic missiles and the like is that sensor performance is essentially destroyed by the act of travelling through the air at Mach 8 or whatever. So how can you see what it is that you want to hit?
Edit to add: that means that these missiles can be great at hitting ground based targets that don't move (hospitals! power stations!) but are rubbish at hitting moving targets. Even slowly moving ones.
Satellites can find carriers with complete certainty.
Honestly, these attempts to keep the right out of power are literally insane and self harming. Remainery 2nd vote madness
eg Hitler won fair and square in 1933 and keeping him out of power “coz he looks a bit dodgy” would have been crazy - and also counter productive. He then went on to stabilise the German economy, modernise the transport system (eg autobahns), host a great Olympics, and generally revitalise the whole nation. Yes he let things get out of hand in the 1940s, to an extent, but that’s true of all parties that stay too long in power. They get stale and run out of ideas. Hitler was no different
There's a counterfactual where Hitler dies in 1938 after the Anschluss with Austria but before the really naughty stuff started. He would probably be remembered as a great German who saved the nation from chaos (and communism), got the nation going again and revitalised German pride. And never forget that for very many Germans, a lot of the bad stuff that happened would have been stopped if only the Fuhrer knew, such was his image even quite deep into the war.
The mass re-armament of Germany that happened in the 1930s was mostly funded with by huge deficit spending backed mostly (but not exclusively) by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mefo_bills . By 1938 the government was officially spending 1.6 times it’s income, with much more funded by the circulating Mefo notes. A collapse in the value of these notes was inevitable: The only reason the German economy hadn’t already suffered rampant inflation was the total destruction of the labour movement by the Nazis, leaving workers unable to bid up their own pay in the face of a steady climb in shop prices.
Germany in 1938 was either going to suffer a terrible economic crisis or it was going to take all the weaponry it had spent the last ten years building & go to war. They had been planning for the latter for a decade: war was inevitable, Hitler or no Hitler.
There was a really good book on this that I read about a decade ago: The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze.
This explains why I haven’t met many people who approve of the Labour government. They barely exist
You’re certainly not going to find them in France or Colombia or Cambodia or suchlike
Why do you think I go to these places?
Money, mainly.
Actually - and sincerely - it isn’t. It’s a factor but way down the list. The reason I travel a lot is
1. I love it 2. It stops me being bored (see item 1) 3. I get to do it for free 4. I get sent to amazing places 5. I get to avoid British weather 6. I get paid
Fair enough but arguably 3 counts as 'for the money', as you would otherwise need to pay for these trips, and some of them if not all seem rather high end (have thought of slumming it for a few, perhaps Butlins at Minehead? To clear the palate?)
They’re really not all high end; they’re quite mixed and sometimes seriously primitive or even dangerous
eg Ukraine
That’s how I cleanse my palate! Constant luxury would be seriously boring. I’ve done dozens if not hundreds of luxury hotels and they tend to blur after a while - they offer the same tip-top comforts
Indeed a stand out five star is quite unusual (but brilliant when you encounter them)
Do the hotels you stay in know that you're from the Gazette? By which I mean when you stay in a lovely suite, is it likely to be extra lovely because they have prepared?
Often, yes
Good for you obviously, but my god you must have to deal with the most extremes of oily people. Eek!
Somehow I cope with the grovelling
To give you an example of how absurd it gets, I once stayed at an outrageously expensive five star in Chiang Mai. High end Asian five stars are always outrageously luxe so I was kinda expecting my own butler and my own grand piano in my own villa. And yes I got all those
But I also had my own paddy field AND MY OWN PEASANT
There was a paddy field out the back to add some greenery to my pleasure. And in the middle of the paddy field was a peasant looking absurdly picturesque in a conical hat. It was like an idealised vision of Asian rural life
Then I got suspicious. It was TOO picturesque and also the guy never did any work. Never bent over and picked rice
So I asked the management and they sheepishly said “yeah we gave you a peasant to make it look better”
I feel we've covered the question of the limits of a democratic vote and when it should be set aside before.
The first question is whether the campaign and vote has been conducted properly according to the established rules in place at the time. If no, recourse up to and including the annulment of a result is entirely proper, if that is proportionate to the breach, as has occurred in recent council by-elections and at a higher level what happened in Oldham East and Saddleworth in 2010, where that election had to be re-run. It is what Romania faces at national level now. What matters is correct judicial application of the rules.
If Farage breached such rules nationally or at constituency level, courts would be arbiters.
We had this with the Brexit vote as well, when Arron Banks was under investigation for funny money. That the vote was advisory was deemed important, effectively the courts passed on any judicial role to parliament. Ultimately, no charges were brought, so one possible line of reasoning for a second referendum, as proper recourse for electoral irregularities, was moot.
Beyond that, if courts are nobbled, if process overturned in defence of early autocracy, if the line is crossed, then street protest to force issues to a head has to be regarded as part of the democratic furniture. This is obviously less amenable to fixed rules than going through the courts, and one can argue about specific instances of this, but it needs to be there.
But, overall it is better not to arrive at those places in the first instance. And, if autocracy does set in for a while, in the West at least, we had better hope and trust that our collective memories of what remains a system of government that delivers sound outcomes for society is strong enough to rebound when the opportunity presents itself.
Even reasonable pre-cognition of general autocratic intentions of Trump or Farage, shouldn't be the arbiter of democracy, though specific rule breaking that invalidates their successes might.
Which seems so much cope. The claims - such as all the US's carriers gone immediately - would see repercussions. That's what Russia and their propagandists - child-molester Scott Ritter amongst them - forget. They seem to think Russia can use weapons and there will be no consequences. Because Russia is stronk or something.
Errr: isn't the difficult bit with carriers finding them?
There have been lots of weapons (including nuclear ones) that are pretty effective at destroying carriers. The difficult bit is finding the carrier group in an ocean of sea, and knowing exactly where it will be when your missile arrives there, and having the missile move at a speed that enables it to use sensors to maneuver.
Because the problem with hypersonic missiles and the like is that sensor performance is essentially destroyed by the act of travelling through the air at Mach 8 or whatever. So how can you see what it is that you want to hit?
Edit to add: that means that these missiles can be great at hitting ground based targets that don't move (hospitals! power stations!) but are rubbish at hitting moving targets. Even slowly moving ones.
Satellites can find carriers with complete certainty.
Sure they can.
And you can know where the carrier is and what direction it's heading for exactly the short period it flies directly overhead.
Say you launch your missile within 30 seconds, and it only has to travel 1,000 miles. Well, the carrier (which can do 40 knots) is now a mile from where you thought it was.
If it's changed direction (and bear in mind that carrier groups know exactly where spy satellites are), then how will the missile hit it? You need the missile to slow down when it's still 50 miles away from the carrier group to a speed at which it can "see", at which point it is suddenly vulnerable to all the carrier's defences.
Which seems so much cope. The claims - such as all the US's carriers gone immediately - would see repercussions. That's what Russia and their propagandists - child-molester Scott Ritter amongst them - forget. They seem to think Russia can use weapons and there will be no consequences. Because Russia is stronk or something.
Errr: isn't the difficult bit with carriers finding them?
There have been lots of weapons (including nuclear ones) that are pretty effective at destroying carriers. The difficult bit is finding the carrier group in an ocean of sea, and knowing exactly where it will be when your missile arrives there, and having the missile move at a speed that enables it to use sensors to maneuver.
Because the problem with hypersonic missiles and the like is that sensor performance is essentially destroyed by the act of travelling through the air at Mach 8 or whatever. So how can you see what it is that you want to hit?
Edit to add: that means that these missiles can be great at hitting ground based targets that don't move (hospitals! power stations!) but are rubbish at hitting moving targets. Even slowly moving ones.
I'm sure a few reconnaissance satellites could track a carrier port to port without a problem. No doubt the Chinese know exactly where each US carrier groups is and I'd imagine they know where each USN surface ship is.
Apparently Russians satellites are providing the Houthis with targeting information for their USVs/ASBM/ASCM.
On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.
I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.
I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice
What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.
If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years
Take them on head on.
We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.
The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.
We live in a democracy and as such we cannot chose to overthrow it no matter how much we disagree
The question in that scenario is just why all those you mentioned did not win the argument
I'd agree 100% in all circumstances besides this.
Farage is backed by dirty money from Putin, from the excesses of Bannon and Putin
This is not home grown Fascism like we saw from NF / BNP this is foreign funded Facism imported in to the UK to support Tommy Robinson and Andrew Tate.
Farage is Farage a spiv chancer ready to head up any anti democratic bandwagon
He has a window of opportunity with Trump and Musk in Washington on power and before Putin wanes.
He would destroy democracy in one of the great democracies.
We postponed democracy for 6 years 1939 to 1945 to fight for our freedoms and may need to do so again.
We can all agree or disagree across the spectrum when fundamentally decent people challenge for power, however misguided we may think they are or not
However the threat we now face from foreign funded Fascism under the guise of Reform is greater than at any time since 1939. Greater than any threat from Communism, greater than any threat from Islam.
Trump and Putin have their finger on the majority of nuclear arms, they have allowed Musk to control the heavens....
The threat is very very real
Does anyone seriously believe this Country would be safe under a Reform Government.
It would be a fascist dystopia hell. We had a glimpse of it on the streets of Lancashire, Tamworth and other places in the summer.
I'll say nothing else about this ..
I just hope I'm wrong
What is democratic about the EU? You go on about facism but have 88 in your username. You can edit your username at CFTC.political erring.com
Was wondering how long this one would take to come up!
Yes, having sex with a 17-year-old, even when consentual, is illegal in loads of places.
Also, criminal justice works differently in different countries.
The usual MO from Brits arrested in Dubai is to scream half a story at the Daily Mail, and hope the negative headlines can help the British Ambassador plead for clemency on the basis of the bad publicity. Sometimes it works, other times not.
It's not even, as I can see, half a story. He doesn't appear to even claim to have a leg to stand on, apart from "the law shouldn't apply to me."
We should be getting daily pics of riverine life in Senegal
Hope he’s OK
I’ve been sending daily pics of riverine life in Senegal, but perhaps not at times you were online. I’ve only had time and bandwidth generally to post once per day.
I am getting towards the end of my trip now and in a very interesting and atypical place: the ile de Goree where we’re spending 2 nights. It’s more like a quaint Mediterranean island than an African town, but with a slave house.
I was impressed with the maison des esclaves and its famous door of no return. The nuanced descriptions of the history of Goree and the slave trade were pitched just right I thought, and didn’t patronise. The National Trust would be proud. Not the Americanised guilt trip I’d expected.
And like many French style heritage hotspots it fills up with day trippers off the ferry during the day then empties out in the evening and takes on a serene air.
Here’s a pic for the day - typical Goree backstreet:
If they aren’t dodging taxes then farmers are destroying our heritage. Ghastly people.
Farmer in court over ploughing D-Day training grounds
Natural England seeks permanent injunction to protect Mesolithic settlement and Second World War artefacts
A farmer is in a court row with the countryside protection watchdog after ploughing fields home to “irreplaceable” D-Day relics.
Andrew Cooper, a tenant of National Trust-owned Croyde Hoe Farm in North Devon, is facing legal action over claims he is ploughing protected fields with artefacts from the Second World War, and the Neolithic and Mesolithic eras.
TBH that's just the Telegrunt's Grunt of the Day for the benefit of the Blue Rinse Brigade.
I don't see what the issue is - it's a normal tax liability. Though if the plan is to lessen IHT on family businesses, such should be included as business assets. I'm surprised that small incorporated LL businesses have not been addressed, which avoid much of the same taxes, as well as the rest ... one man bands etc.
My ex piet de terre in Soho almost directly opposite Grouchos is exactly 10% the size of your listed town house in Leicestershire and it's just going on the market for £880,000. And I bet you don't get girls peeing against the wall in Dean St either
Which seems so much cope. The claims - such as all the US's carriers gone immediately - would see repercussions. That's what Russia and their propagandists - child-molester Scott Ritter amongst them - forget. They seem to think Russia can use weapons and there will be no consequences. Because Russia is stronk or something.
Errr: isn't the difficult bit with carriers finding them?
There have been lots of weapons (including nuclear ones) that are pretty effective at destroying carriers. The difficult bit is finding the carrier group in an ocean of sea, and knowing exactly where it will be when your missile arrives there, and having the missile move at a speed that enables it to use sensors to maneuver.
Because the problem with hypersonic missiles and the like is that sensor performance is essentially destroyed by the act of travelling through the air at Mach 8 or whatever. So how can you see what it is that you want to hit?
Edit to add: that means that these missiles can be great at hitting ground based targets that don't move (hospitals! power stations!) but are rubbish at hitting moving targets. Even slowly moving ones.
IMV there are many issues with what they are saying. My main point was that they seem to think they could do something, and there would be zero repercussions. "We can do this to you!"
They don't hear the reply: "And what do you think we'd do to you if you did?"
Satellites can help track carriers; but I'm unsure how much coverage Russia has 24/7 worldwide.
Was wondering how long this one would take to come up!
Yes, having sex with a 17-year-old, even when consentual, is illegal in loads of places.
Also, criminal justice works differently in different countries.
The usual MO from Brits arrested in Dubai is to scream half a story at the Daily Mail, and hope the negative headlines can help the British Ambassador plead for clemency on the basis of the bad publicity. Sometimes it works, other times not.
The story just says a holiday romance, it doesn't go into any of the gruesome details. Sex with a minor is a different matter. The article says he is jailed over a holiday romance which seems pretty benign.
He’s jailed for sex with a minor.
Some countries apply leniency over statutory rape laws when two willing participants are of roughly similar age. Other countries don’t.
I suspect what happens is that in a couple of weeks in the big house the young man agrees to plead guilty and be deported. AIUI he’s a resident currently at school and living with his parents in Dubai, which makes for a complex situation as far as the family is concerned.
Which seems so much cope. The claims - such as all the US's carriers gone immediately - would see repercussions. That's what Russia and their propagandists - child-molester Scott Ritter amongst them - forget. They seem to think Russia can use weapons and there will be no consequences. Because Russia is stronk or something.
Errr: isn't the difficult bit with carriers finding them?
There have been lots of weapons (including nuclear ones) that are pretty effective at destroying carriers. The difficult bit is finding the carrier group in an ocean of sea, and knowing exactly where it will be when your missile arrives there, and having the missile move at a speed that enables it to use sensors to maneuver.
Because the problem with hypersonic missiles and the like is that sensor performance is essentially destroyed by the act of travelling through the air at Mach 8 or whatever. So how can you see what it is that you want to hit?
Edit to add: that means that these missiles can be great at hitting ground based targets that don't move (hospitals! power stations!) but are rubbish at hitting moving targets. Even slowly moving ones.
IMV there are many issues with what they are saying. My main point was that they seem to think they could do something, and there would be zero repercussions. "We can do this to you!"
They don't hear the reply: "And what do you think we'd do to you if you did?"
Satellites can help track carriers; but I'm unsure how much coverage Russia has 24/7 worldwide.
I can help with the last one.
And the answer is "not a lot". Tracking a moving carrier group is difficult, because a single satellite will give you a picture of an area every 90 minutes or so. If the weather is clear, great! It can't have moved far enough to leave your track, and you can adjust the orbit so you have constant (i.e. every hour and a half) eyes on it.
But what if the weather is bad? Suddenly you might not have eyes on the carrier group for 12 hours. Now where is it? At 30 knots, it can have moved 400 miles. That's a box 800 miles by 800 miles, or almost twice the size of a box containing France!
It's easy for spy satellites to watch a port. Or to watch the Malacca Straits or the Straits of Hormuz.
It's a lot harder for them to track a carrier group, even if they had infinite fuel for maneuvering. Which they don't.
The Health Secretary Statement is making a statement on Puberty Blockers on in the Commons.
An indefinite ban is being imposed.
'These should never have been used until after enough evidence being available' sounds like a potential large incoming compensation bill, if the NHS or NHS staff were involved.
(a) Compensation would require someone who had them to sue, but most people who had them were eager to take them. It's not those who received them who are concerned about them, by and large.
(b) I doubt such comments now would mean the prescriptions at the time would fail the Bolam test.
Listening back to the full statement, I am really impressed with his approach to this - sensitive, serious, thoughtful, and evidence based.
Compliments from across the house, as far as I can see.
And equally high quality responses from the other MPs I listened to, starting with the Shadow Health Secretary.
On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.
I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.
I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice
What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.
If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years
Take them on head on.
We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.
The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.
We live in a democracy and as such we cannot chose to overthrow it no matter how much we disagree
The question in that scenario is just why all those you mentioned did not win the argument
I'd agree 100% in all circumstances besides this.
Farage is backed by dirty money from Putin, from the excesses of Bannon and Putin
This is not home grown Fascism like we saw from NF / BNP this is foreign funded Facism imported in to the UK to support Tommy Robinson and Andrew Tate.
Farage is Farage a spiv chancer ready to head up any anti democratic bandwagon
He has a window of opportunity with Trump and Musk in Washington on power and before Putin wanes.
He would destroy democracy in one of the great democracies.
We postponed democracy for 6 years 1939 to 1945 to fight for our freedoms and may need to do so again.
We can all agree or disagree across the spectrum when fundamentally decent people challenge for power, however misguided we may think they are or not
However the threat we now face from foreign funded Fascism under the guise of Reform is greater than at any time since 1939. Greater than any threat from Communism, greater than any threat from Islam.
Trump and Putin have their finger on the majority of nuclear arms, they have allowed Musk to control the heavens....
The threat is very very real
Does anyone seriously believe this Country would be safe under a Reform Government.
It would be a fascist dystopia hell. We had a glimpse of it on the streets of Lancashire, Tamworth and other places in the summer.
I'll say nothing else about this ..
I just hope I'm wrong
What is democratic about the EU? You go on about facism but have 88 in your username. You can edit your username at CFTC.political erring.com
On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.
I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.
I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice
What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.
If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years
Take them on head on.
We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.
The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.
We live in a democracy and as such we cannot chose to overthrow it no matter how much we disagree
The question in that scenario is just why all those you mentioned did not win the argument
I'd agree 100% in all circumstances besides this.
Farage is backed by dirty money from Putin, from the excesses of Bannon and Putin
This is not home grown Fascism like we saw from NF / BNP this is foreign funded Facism imported in to the UK to support Tommy Robinson and Andrew Tate.
Farage is Farage a spiv chancer ready to head up any anti democratic bandwagon
He has a window of opportunity with Trump and Musk in Washington on power and before Putin wanes.
He would destroy democracy in one of the great democracies.
We postponed democracy for 6 years 1939 to 1945 to fight for our freedoms and may need to do so again.
We can all agree or disagree across the spectrum when fundamentally decent people challenge for power, however misguided we may think they are or not
However the threat we now face from foreign funded Fascism under the guise of Reform is greater than at any time since 1939. Greater than any threat from Communism, greater than any threat from Islam.
Trump and Putin have their finger on the majority of nuclear arms, they have allowed Musk to control the heavens....
The threat is very very real
Does anyone seriously believe this Country would be safe under a Reform Government.
It would be a fascist dystopia hell. We had a glimpse of it on the streets of Lancashire, Tamworth and other places in the summer.
I'll say nothing else about this ..
I just hope I'm wrong
What is democratic about the EU? You go on about facism but have 88 in your username. You can edit your username at CFTC.political erring.com
The EU is actually quite "democratic", contrary to how those with a propensity to have swivel eyes would have one believe.
The executive of the EU is the Council of Ministers, or Council of The EU is the executive and is made up of ministers from each member countries, who are democratically elected by each member state. The Presidential roles are appointed by said democratically elected leaders. The European Parliament is directly elected.
Contrast this with the UK : An unelected hereditary head of state. A bicameral legislature made up of an upper house that is still made up of random appointments and hereditaries. A lower house that currently has a party with a massive majority and untrammelled power that was voted in by just 20% of those eligible to vote.
There is your answer and here endeth the lesson. The EU is massively more democratic than the UK. Fact.
Which seems so much cope. The claims - such as all the US's carriers gone immediately - would see repercussions. That's what Russia and their propagandists - child-molester Scott Ritter amongst them - forget. They seem to think Russia can use weapons and there will be no consequences. Because Russia is stronk or something.
Errr: isn't the difficult bit with carriers finding them?
There have been lots of weapons (including nuclear ones) that are pretty effective at destroying carriers. The difficult bit is finding the carrier group in an ocean of sea, and knowing exactly where it will be when your missile arrives there, and having the missile move at a speed that enables it to use sensors to maneuver.
Because the problem with hypersonic missiles and the like is that sensor performance is essentially destroyed by the act of travelling through the air at Mach 8 or whatever. So how can you see what it is that you want to hit?
Edit to add: that means that these missiles can be great at hitting ground based targets that don't move (hospitals! power stations!) but are rubbish at hitting moving targets. Even slowly moving ones.
IMV there are many issues with what they are saying. My main point was that they seem to think they could do something, and there would be zero repercussions. "We can do this to you!"
They don't hear the reply: "And what do you think we'd do to you if you did?"
Satellites can help track carriers; but I'm unsure how much coverage Russia has 24/7 worldwide.
I can help with the last one.
And the answer is "not a lot". Tracking a moving carrier group is difficult, because a single satellite will give you a picture of an area every 90 minutes or so. If the weather is clear, great! It can't have moved far enough to leave your track, and you can adjust the orbit so you have constant (i.e. every hour and a half) eyes on it.
But what if the weather is bad? Suddenly you might not have eyes on the carrier group for 12 hours. Now where is it? At 30 knots, it can have moved 400 miles. That's a box 800 miles by 800 miles, or almost twice the size of a box containing France!
It's easy for spy satellites to watch a port. Or to watch the Malacca Straits or the Straits of Hormuz.
It's a lot harder for them to track a carrier group, even if they had infinite fuel for maneuvering. Which they don't.
As Herman Kahn put it - "Enemies are rarely cooperative. In fact they seem to try, often, to do the most inconvenient thing from the point of view of the decision maker."
On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.
I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.
I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice
What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.
If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years
Take them on head on.
We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.
The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.
We live in a democracy and as such we cannot chose to overthrow it no matter how much we disagree
The question in that scenario is just why all those you mentioned did not win the argument
I'd agree 100% in all circumstances besides this.
Farage is backed by dirty money from Putin, from the excesses of Bannon and Putin
This is not home grown Fascism like we saw from NF / BNP this is foreign funded Facism imported in to the UK to support Tommy Robinson and Andrew Tate.
Farage is Farage a spiv chancer ready to head up any anti democratic bandwagon
He has a window of opportunity with Trump and Musk in Washington on power and before Putin wanes.
He would destroy democracy in one of the great democracies.
We postponed democracy for 6 years 1939 to 1945 to fight for our freedoms and may need to do so again.
We can all agree or disagree across the spectrum when fundamentally decent people challenge for power, however misguided we may think they are or not
However the threat we now face from foreign funded Fascism under the guise of Reform is greater than at any time since 1939. Greater than any threat from Communism, greater than any threat from Islam.
Trump and Putin have their finger on the majority of nuclear arms, they have allowed Musk to control the heavens....
The threat is very very real
Does anyone seriously believe this Country would be safe under a Reform Government.
It would be a fascist dystopia hell. We had a glimpse of it on the streets of Lancashire, Tamworth and other places in the summer.
I'll say nothing else about this ..
I just hope I'm wrong
What is democratic about the EU? You go on about facism but have 88 in your username. You can edit your username at CFTC.political erring.com
1988 was the year I was born
Is that a crime
Yes. You are guilty.
{puts on black cap}
You will be taken from this place to place a of punishment. There you will confined in a room with Piers Corby, Piers Morgan and Julian Assange. The only food will be pizza with pineapple on it. The only entertainment will be
1) the worst Radiohead song on permanent repeat, with no way to stop it or reduce the volume. 2) a laptop that only offers programming in python, or reading the comments on Conservative Home.
On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.
I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.
I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice
What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.
If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years
Take them on head on.
We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.
The fascists can beat as much as they like if all none Fascist Parties created a Government of National Unity in the face of evil.
We live in a democracy and as such we cannot chose to overthrow it no matter how much we disagree
The question in that scenario is just why all those you mentioned did not win the argument
I'd agree 100% in all circumstances besides this.
Farage is backed by dirty money from Putin, from the excesses of Bannon and Putin
This is not home grown Fascism like we saw from NF / BNP this is foreign funded Facism imported in to the UK to support Tommy Robinson and Andrew Tate.
Farage is Farage a spiv chancer ready to head up any anti democratic bandwagon
He has a window of opportunity with Trump and Musk in Washington on power and before Putin wanes.
He would destroy democracy in one of the great democracies.
We postponed democracy for 6 years 1939 to 1945 to fight for our freedoms and may need to do so again.
We can all agree or disagree across the spectrum when fundamentally decent people challenge for power, however misguided we may think they are or not
However the threat we now face from foreign funded Fascism under the guise of Reform is greater than at any time since 1939. Greater than any threat from Communism, greater than any threat from Islam.
Trump and Putin have their finger on the majority of nuclear arms, they have allowed Musk to control the heavens....
The threat is very very real
Does anyone seriously believe this Country would be safe under a Reform Government.
It would be a fascist dystopia hell. We had a glimpse of it on the streets of Lancashire, Tamworth and other places in the summer.
I'll say nothing else about this ..
I just hope I'm wrong
What is democratic about the EU? You go on about facism but have 88 in your username. You can edit your username at CFTC.political erring.com
The EU is actually quite "democratic", contrary to how those with a propensity to have swivel eyes would have one believe.
The executive of the EU is the Council of Ministers, or Council of The EU is the executive and is made up of ministers from each member countries, who are democratically elected by each member state. The Presidential roles are appointed by said democratically elected leaders. The European Parliament is directly elected.
Contrast this with the UK : An unelected hereditary head of state. A bicameral legislature made up of an upper house that is still made up of random appointments and hereditaries. A lower house that currently has a party with a massive majority and untrammelled power that was voted in by just 20% of those eligible to vote.
There is your answer and here endeth the lesson. The EU is massively more democratic than the UK. Fact.
The Commission is appointed, and the EU parliament just a talking shop. There is no way a EU citizen can effectively vote for the EU "government" to do something else. The President at least should be direct y elected. I would actually have been happier being in an EU having more of the trappings of a state, if they included an elected government and a single border force (Schengen is a great idea, but needs a ring of steel round the outside that shouldn't be the responsibility of governments)
On the strictest definition, only one postwar parliament has ever gone the full term. John Major.
I would include 2010-2015 since the FTPA didn't allow any alternative date.
I exclude it BECAUSE of the FTPA. The argument is about how and why UK governments so rarely go the full term. The 2010-15 parliament didn’t have any choice
What you seem to be missing is that Starmer will call the election early if it’s in his party’s interest, but if your (probably absurd) prediction that Farage is heading for a win, he will wait and this parliament will go the full term.
If Farage is heading for victory Lab, LD, Greens, Nats and half the Tory Party should seek emergency legislation to extend fixed term to 10 years
Take them on head on.
We cannot allow Fascists to take over the UK to destroy the freedom our ancestors fought so hard to protect.
"Only people I agree with are allowed to win elections".
Strikes me as a very Fascist comment.
More or less fascist than, "[Hitler] then went on to stabilise the German economy, modernise the transport system (eg autobahns), host a great Olympics, and generally revitalise the whole nation."?
The commissar supports the idea of cancelling elections if someone he doesn't like looks as if they're going to win. Shocker.
"Putin’s regime is not yet at [economic collapse] but it would only take one more change in the Middle East to bring matters to a head. If the Saudis again decide to flood the world with cheap crude to recoup market share – as many predict – oil will fall below $40 and Russia will spin out of economic control.
The Ukraine war may end in Riyadh."
AEP - Telegraph
It's a little more complicated than that, because while Saudi could probably add about one million barrels a day to production, that will have an impact on drilling activity in the US. (Plus, of course, there's refinery capacity to think about.)
With that said, a million barrels a day of incremental crude would almost certainly push prices down meaningfully. It would also make it harder for Russia to offer meaningful discounts to the Indians and Chinese.
Russia's financial situation would be meaningfully impacted by such a move.
HOWEVER.
Why would Saudi do such a thing? Russia, while not a member of OPEC, has had friendly relations with them, and has - from time to time - reduced production in concert with them to lift global oil prices. Is there any guarantee a new Russian regime would do similarly? ON the other hand a Russian collapse would almost certainly result in a near term reduction in Russian oil exports, which would probably be a benefit to OPEC.
I think Trump may convince the Saudis to pump more oil temporarily to help get US inflation down, that may have the side effect of pushing the Russian economy off the cliff edge.
"Putin’s regime is not yet at [economic collapse] but it would only take one more change in the Middle East to bring matters to a head. If the Saudis again decide to flood the world with cheap crude to recoup market share – as many predict – oil will fall below $40 and Russia will spin out of economic control.
The Ukraine war may end in Riyadh."
AEP - Telegraph
It's a little more complicated than that, because while Saudi could probably add about one million barrels a day to production, that will have an impact on drilling activity in the US. (Plus, of course, there's refinery capacity to think about.)
With that said, a million barrels a day of incremental crude would almost certainly push prices down meaningfully. It would also make it harder for Russia to offer meaningful discounts to the Indians and Chinese.
Russia's financial situation would be meaningfully impacted by such a move.
HOWEVER.
Why would Saudi do such a thing? Russia, while not a member of OPEC, has had friendly relations with them, and has - from time to time - reduced production in concert with them to lift global oil prices. Is there any guarantee a new Russian regime would do similarly? ON the other hand a Russian collapse would almost certainly result in a near term reduction in Russian oil exports, which would probably be a benefit to OPEC.
From a value perspective, given the trend against oil, doesn’t it make sense for Saudi to take a competitor down and maximise their near term volume/price? Longer time their oil is going to have fewer buyers
I have just been asked, in all sincerity, and in relation to a conversation which arose organically, by a younger colleague, presumably in the expectation that, as a man of the world of a certain age that I would know this, what the difference is between a stoat and a weasel.
Other men of a certain age – i.e. everybody here – will, I’m sure, recognise the relish with which I savoured the moment before slamming the ball gleefully into the open goal in front of me.
It was all I could do not to pull my jumper over my head and wheel around the office in celebration. Days in the office rarely get much better than this. Friends, I feel so ALIVE.
My younger colleagues celebrated by rolling their eyes in a way I have chosen to interpret as “indulgently.”
What is the difference between a joist and a girder? What is the difference between an enzyme and a hormone?
(both of these are jokes, btw)
What's the difference between a Buffalo and a Bison
Comments
You suggested an action to deny the democratic process because you do not like the possible result
Frankly you do not do yourself any favours with this nonsense
There would have to be a role for Rory Stewart and Caroline Lucas as well. Two titans sadly not on the stage anymore.
Why not write an article and pitch it.
Your Bestie Jess could get a plum job to match her intellect and gravitas.
With that said, a million barrels a day of incremental crude would almost certainly push prices down meaningfully. It would also make it harder for Russia to offer meaningful discounts to the Indians and Chinese.
Russia's financial situation would be meaningfully impacted by such a move.
HOWEVER.
Why would Saudi do such a thing? Russia, while not a member of OPEC, has had friendly relations with them, and has - from time to time - reduced production in concert with them to lift global oil prices. Is there any guarantee a new Russian regime would do similarly? ON the other hand a Russian collapse would almost certainly result in a near term reduction in Russian oil exports, which would probably be a benefit to OPEC.
1. I love it
2. It stops me being bored (see item 1)
3. I get to do it for free
4. I get sent to amazing places
5. I get to avoid British weather
6. I get paid
We should be getting daily pics of riverine life in Senegal
Hope he’s OK
For such a small country how is it possible to use so much weaponry and keep a constant supply
2) use orders of magnitude fewer weapons by using expensive smart bombs, rather then carpet bombing with 'dumb' bombs/shells.
3) surge manufacturing.
Yow cor wosh yor ands in a Buffalo !!!!
I'm here all week. Try the fish.
Although if she had gone back to another country it is unlikely it would meet the evidentiary requirements for a conviction.
Germany in 1938 was either going to suffer a terrible economic crisis or it was going to take all the weaponry it had spent the last ten years building & go to war. They had been planning for the latter for a decade: war was inevitable, Hitler or no Hitler.
What is the difference between an enzyme and a hormone? You can't make an en zyme but you can make a [Stop right there - Ed]
eg Ukraine
That’s how I cleanse my palate! Constant luxury would be seriously boring. I’ve done dozens if not hundreds of luxury hotels and they tend to blur after a while - they offer the same tip-top comforts
Indeed a stand out five star is quite unusual (but brilliant when you encounter them)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oreshnik_(missile)
Which seems so much cope. The claims - such as all the US's carriers gone immediately - would see repercussions. That's what Russia and their propagandists - child-molester Scott Ritter amongst them - forget. They seem to think Russia can use weapons and there will be no consequences. Because Russia is stronk or something.
In addition the Israeli military is actually capable. Books have been written on why the local dictatorships can't afford (in the political sense) to have effective militaries.
Big! Russian! Weapon! Stonk! World! has been the refrain for decades. Putin sits on the toilet, measuring his weapon all time....
There have been lots of weapons (including nuclear ones) that are pretty effective at destroying carriers. The difficult bit is finding the carrier group in an ocean of sea, and knowing exactly where it will be when your missile arrives there, and having the missile move at a speed that enables it to use sensors to maneuver.
Because the problem with hypersonic missiles and the like is that sensor performance is essentially destroyed by the act of travelling through the air at Mach 8 or whatever. So how can you see what it is that you want to hit?
Edit to add: that means that these missiles can be great at hitting ground based targets that don't move (hospitals! power stations!) but are rubbish at hitting moving targets. Even slowly moving ones.
This caught other countries by surprise - they knew the german timetable. It was evident in the naval building program, which couldn't be hidden. For example, the Poles hadn't got their tanks yet (French), and the British plan of building up productivity capacity, *then* using mass production to build the latest weapons was caught in a mis-step.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-174_Standard_ERAM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3
NEW THREAD
To give you an example of how absurd it gets, I once stayed at an outrageously expensive five star in Chiang Mai. High end Asian five stars are always outrageously luxe so I was kinda expecting my own butler and my own grand piano in my own villa. And yes I got all those
But I also had my own paddy field AND MY OWN PEASANT
There was a paddy field out the back to add some greenery to my pleasure. And in the middle of the paddy field was a peasant looking absurdly picturesque in a conical hat. It was like an idealised vision of Asian rural life
Then I got suspicious. It was TOO picturesque and also the guy never did any work. Never bent over and picked rice
So I asked the management and they sheepishly said “yeah we gave you a peasant to make it look better”
The first question is whether the campaign and vote has been conducted properly according to the established rules in place at the time. If no, recourse up to and including the annulment of a result is entirely proper, if that is proportionate to the breach, as has occurred in recent council by-elections and at a higher level what happened in Oldham East and Saddleworth in 2010, where that election had to be re-run. It is what Romania faces at national level now. What matters is correct judicial application of the rules.
If Farage breached such rules nationally or at constituency level, courts would be arbiters.
We had this with the Brexit vote as well, when Arron Banks was under investigation for funny money. That the vote was advisory was deemed important, effectively the courts passed on any judicial role to parliament. Ultimately, no charges were brought, so one possible line of reasoning for a second referendum, as proper recourse for electoral irregularities, was moot.
Beyond that, if courts are nobbled, if process overturned in defence of early autocracy, if the line is crossed, then street protest to force issues to a head has to be regarded as part of the democratic furniture. This is obviously less amenable to fixed rules than going through the courts, and one can argue about specific instances of this, but it needs to be there.
But, overall it is better not to arrive at those places in the first instance. And, if autocracy does set in for a while, in the West at least, we had better hope and trust that our collective memories of what remains a system of government that delivers sound outcomes for society is strong enough to rebound when the opportunity presents itself.
Even reasonable pre-cognition of general autocratic intentions of Trump or Farage, shouldn't be the arbiter of democracy, though specific rule breaking that invalidates their successes might.
And you can know where the carrier is and what direction it's heading for exactly the short period it flies directly overhead.
Say you launch your missile within 30 seconds, and it only has to travel 1,000 miles. Well, the carrier (which can do 40 knots) is now a mile from where you thought it was.
If it's changed direction (and bear in mind that carrier groups know exactly where spy satellites are), then how will the missile hit it? You need the missile to slow down when it's still 50 miles away from the carrier group to a speed at which it can "see", at which point it is suddenly vulnerable to all the carrier's defences.
Apparently Russians satellites are providing the Houthis with targeting information for their USVs/ASBM/ASCM.
I am getting towards the end of my trip now and in a very interesting and atypical place: the ile de Goree where we’re spending 2 nights. It’s more like a quaint Mediterranean island than an African town, but with a slave house.
I was impressed with the maison des esclaves and its famous door of no return. The nuanced descriptions of the history of Goree and the slave trade were pitched just right I thought, and didn’t patronise. The National Trust would be proud. Not the Americanised guilt trip I’d expected.
And like many French style heritage hotspots it fills up with day trippers off the ferry during the day then empties out in the evening and takes on a serene air.
Here’s a pic for the day - typical Goree backstreet:
They don't hear the reply: "And what do you think we'd do to you if you did?"
Satellites can help track carriers; but I'm unsure how much coverage Russia has 24/7 worldwide.
Some countries apply leniency over statutory rape laws when two willing participants are of roughly similar age. Other countries don’t.
I suspect what happens is that in a couple of weeks in the big house the young man agrees to plead guilty and be deported. AIUI he’s a resident currently at school and living with his parents in Dubai, which makes for a complex situation as far as the family is concerned.
And the answer is "not a lot". Tracking a moving carrier group is difficult, because a single satellite will give you a picture of an area every 90 minutes or so. If the weather is clear, great! It can't have moved far enough to leave your track, and you can adjust the orbit so you have constant (i.e. every hour and a half) eyes on it.
But what if the weather is bad? Suddenly you might not have eyes on the carrier group for 12 hours. Now where is it? At 30 knots, it can have moved 400 miles. That's a box 800 miles by 800 miles, or almost twice the size of a box containing France!
It's easy for spy satellites to watch a port. Or to watch the Malacca Straits or the Straits of Hormuz.
It's a lot harder for them to track a carrier group, even if they had infinite fuel for maneuvering. Which they don't.
Compliments from across the house, as far as I can see.
And equally high quality responses from the other MPs I listened to, starting with the Shadow Health Secretary.
I recommend a listen.
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/5c91805c-f151-45de-b806-816d8b7215d8?in=13:30:42
(Also quite impressed with the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper on People Smuggling after her foreign trip, but that's a separate one.)
Is that a crime
The executive of the EU is the Council of Ministers, or Council of The EU is the executive and is made up of ministers from each member countries, who are democratically elected by each member state. The Presidential roles are appointed by said democratically elected leaders. The European Parliament is directly elected.
Contrast this with the UK : An unelected hereditary head of state. A bicameral legislature made up of an upper house that is still made up of random appointments and hereditaries. A lower house that currently has a party with a massive majority and untrammelled power that was voted in by just 20% of those eligible to vote.
There is your answer and here endeth the lesson. The EU is massively more democratic than the UK. Fact.
{puts on black cap}
You will be taken from this place to place a of punishment. There you will confined in a room with Piers Corby, Piers Morgan and Julian Assange. The only food will be pizza with pineapple on it. The only entertainment will be
1) the worst Radiohead song on permanent repeat, with no way to stop it or reduce the volume.
2) a laptop that only offers programming in python, or reading the comments on Conservative Home.
May God have no mercy upon your soul.
Note that the first comment under the article is Dwayne Day giving it a thumbs up.
Is one of my favourite grammatically correct sentences in English