Skip to content
Options

The downfall of Japan – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,611
edited August 6 in General
The downfall of Japan – politicalbetting.com

6 August 2025 marks the 80th anniversary of the first atomic bomb being dropped on HiroshimaOur recent survey finds most in major European nations think the atomic bombings were not morally justified, with Americans split 38%-35%yougov.co.uk/internationa…

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,920
    Morning.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,717
    Not an expert on the atom bombings, but also wasn't it the case that the Americans didn't fully realise the devastation they would cause? Particularly the longer term effects, which we now have a much greater awareness of.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing sometimes.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,920
    Is mother proud of little boy today?
    Ah-ha, this kiss you give
    It's never ever going to fade away
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,889
    edited August 6
    Third in line.

    To me this polling is verging on "ask a stupid question". It's making a moral judgement in circumstances which are so far from our experience and time that it is massively problematic.

    We can read the history, and the testimonies - but I think as a polling question it is pretty meaningless.

    How did Churchill assess this in his writings?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,133
    ydoethur said:

    Not an expert on the atom bombings, but also wasn't it the case that the Americans didn't fully realise the devastation they would cause? Particularly the longer term effects, which we now have a much greater awareness of.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing sometimes.

    Yes, also one of the top targets was Kyoto but Henry Stimson, Secretary of War, vetoed the idea because he had visited Kyoto before.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,920
    ydoethur said:

    Not an expert on the atom bombings, but also wasn't it the case that the Americans didn't fully realise the devastation they would cause? ...

    That's fairly likely.
    Most of the scientists on the project did; the rest not so much.

    Truman didn't really even make the decision to drop the second bomb - he'd effectively handed over operational control to the military, once the decision to use a nuclear weapon had been made. The strict decision protocols didn't come into existence until quite a bit later.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,256
    There's a possibility the US may yet save us from Chagos. It's the hope that kills you...

    https://order-order.com/2025/08/05/exc-trump-could-still-block-starmers-chagos-deal-after-house-appropriations-intervention/

    Honestly I would rather just give the bloody thing to America, at least we wouldn't have to pay them to take it.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,179

    ydoethur said:

    Not an expert on the atom bombings, but also wasn't it the case that the Americans didn't fully realise the devastation they would cause? Particularly the longer term effects, which we now have a much greater awareness of.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing sometimes.

    Yes, also one of the top targets was Kyoto but Henry Stimson, Secretary of War, vetoed the idea because he had visited Kyoto before.
    That it was going to cause about as much damage as a big fire raid was known.

    As was the issues of fallout - which is why both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were airbursts. Which reduced the fallout to pretty much zero. The Trinity test wasn’t an airbust - the tower wasn’t that high - and produced a fair amount of fallout.

    The thing that was a surprise, was that prompt radiation* from the bombs (X-rays, gamma, neutrons) could make people sick, due to the unexpected number of survivors closer to the explosion. The thermal and blast protection of even flimsy buildings had been underestimated, massively.


    *radiation from the actual explosion
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,138
    Arguably ww2 might have ended sooner if the Axis powers had not insisted on fighting on when it was obvious they had already lost. (Some would respond that Allied insistence on unconditional surrender rather than armistice pointed the same way.)

    The Red Army was invading from the north using millions of troops no longer fighting the Nazis since VE Day. The Allies had naval and air supremacy, allowing USAF to firebomb Japanese cities at will. Japan by the end had no hope, as was obvious to anyone bar its military leaders following the cult of the Samurai. Thankfully Hirohito fell for the American atom bomb bluff – that they could drop one a day until there were no Japanese cities left, when in truth they had built only two bombs and could not make more for months.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,179
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Not an expert on the atom bombings, but also wasn't it the case that the Americans didn't fully realise the devastation they would cause? ...

    That's fairly likely.
    Most of the scientists on the project did; the rest not so much.

    Truman didn't really even make the decision to drop the second bomb - he'd effectively handed over operational control to the military, once the decision to use a nuclear weapon had been made. The strict decision protocols didn't come into existence until quite a bit later.
    Richard Rhodes covers it quite well - there have been some minor updates.

    The reason for two bombs being dropped was assumed by everyone in the project.

    There were two routes to the bomb (there are more, but it’s not sure anyone has ever used them) - Uranium 235 and Plutonium 239.

    Plutonium was a secret at this point. Extracting Uranium 235 by enrichment (what the Iranians are going for) is a vast, expensive business*. More so at the time, when it had to be invented.

    The Japanese knew all about the theory of nuclear fission. And had done some lab scale experiments in Uranium separation. Most physicists at the time thought it was either impossible or would take years to extract enough to make one bomb.

    Indeed, immediately after Hiroshima, Japanese physicists told the Japanese government that it might take years for the Americans to make a second bomb.

    Nagasaki was about making the production line evident.

    *To run one of half a dozen processes, the US used all the silver bullion in the Treasury (thousands of tons) to make wire for electromagnets.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,920

    Arguably ww2 might have ended sooner if the Axis powers had not insisted on fighting on when it was obvious they had already lost. (Some would respond that Allied insistence on unconditional surrender rather than armistice pointed the same way.)

    The Red Army was invading from the north using millions of troops no longer fighting the Nazis since VE Day. The Allies had naval and air supremacy, allowing USAF to firebomb Japanese cities at will. Japan by the end had no hope, as was obvious to anyone bar its military leaders following the cult of the Samurai. Thankfully Hirohito fell for the American atom bomb bluff – that they could drop one a day until there were no Japanese cities left, when in truth they had built only two bombs and could not make more for months.

    That's one account.
    More likely is that Hirohito used the shock of the bomb to get the military to give up - having started the effort in June of that year.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,889
    edited August 6
    A vaguely on topic sub-thread.

    How many rock bands were / are named after features of WW2. It seems to be what I might call a 1970s Crass thing.

    I have:

    Joy Division - forced camp brothels at Auschwitz etc. Choosing both names are very male things to do imo.
    Spandau Ballet - disputed, but allegedly the "death dance" done by a person being hanged, or shot with a machine gun.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,695
    MattW said:

    A vaguely on topic sub-thread.

    How many rock bands were / are named after features of WW2. It seems to be what I might call a 1970s Crass thing.

    I have:

    Joy Division - forced camp brothels at Auschwitz etc. Choosing both names are very male things to do imo.
    Spandau Ballet - disputed, but allegedly the "death dance" done by a person being hanged, or shot with a machine gun.

    Half Man Half Biscuit was Hitler's favourite disparaging term for subordinates that displeased him.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,585
    edited August 6
    ydoethur said:

    Not an expert on the atom bombings, but also wasn't it the case that the Americans didn't fully realise the devastation they would cause? Particularly the longer term effects, which we now have a much greater awareness of.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing sometimes.

    I believe *some* Americans were very curious to see just what atom bombs would do to a real city and real human beings rather than empty desert. There was also the bonus of putting the shits up Stalin.
    Preventing the slaughter of a full born invasion is a perfectly defensible moral position but as ever plenty of less noble motives swirling about.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 13,194
    Morning all. Tories woes pile up as they fall to their lowest yet with More in Common this week and Reform equal their best

    Ref 31 (+2)
    Lab 22 (-1)
    Con 18 (-2)
    LD 14 (+1)
    Grn 7 (=)
    SNP 3 (=)
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,053
    On this question:

    In your opinion, which one country would you say contributed most to the defeat of Germany in World War 2?

    Surely the answer is Germany.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,736
    edited August 6
    MattW said:

    A vaguely on topic sub-thread.

    How many rock bands were / are named after features of WW2. It seems to be what I might call a 1970s Crass thing.

    I have:

    Joy Division - forced camp brothels at Auschwitz etc. Choosing both names are very male things to do imo.
    Spandau Ballet - disputed, but allegedly the "death dance" done by a person being hanged, or shot with a machine gun.

    Brittany Spears was the code name for a series of diversionary commando attacks on Finisterre on June 5th 1944.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,179

    Arguably ww2 might have ended sooner if the Axis powers had not insisted on fighting on when it was obvious they had already lost. (Some would respond that Allied insistence on unconditional surrender rather than armistice pointed the same way.)

    The Red Army was invading from the north using millions of troops no longer fighting the Nazis since VE Day. The Allies had naval and air supremacy, allowing USAF to firebomb Japanese cities at will. Japan by the end had no hope, as was obvious to anyone bar its military leaders following the cult of the Samurai. Thankfully Hirohito fell for the American atom bomb bluff – that they could drop one a day until there were no Japanese cities left, when in truth they had built only two bombs and could not make more for months.

    The third bomb was on the way to Tinian Island when the surrender was announced.

    General Groves held it up - specifically the shipment of the core (the famous Demon Core) - and awaited Presidential orders.

    The plan was 19th August. The next 3 weapons would be ready of September. 3 more in October.

    After that, accelerating production of nuclear material, using material for gun type weapons in implosion weapons (much more efficient) and an improved design would all boost delivery to 10-20 weapons per month.
  • eekeek Posts: 30,868
    MattW said:

    A vaguely on topic sub-thread.

    How many rock bands were / are named after features of WW2. It seems to be what I might call a 1970s Crass thing.

    I have:

    Joy Division - forced camp brothels at Auschwitz etc. Choosing both names are very male things to do imo.
    Spandau Ballet - disputed, but allegedly the "death dance" done by a person being hanged, or shot with a machine gun.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1g97g8p/comment/lt58hoe/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button has the full details on Spandau Ballet - including the idea that the name was nicked from an unsuccessful short lived band in the 70s.

    Spandau Ballet itself seems to be traced to a 1953 article in the London Daily News
  • eekeek Posts: 30,868

    Morning all. Tories woes pile up as they fall to their lowest yet with More in Common this week and Reform equal their best

    Ref 31 (+2)
    Lab 22 (-1)
    Con 18 (-2)
    LD 14 (+1)
    Grn 7 (=)
    SNP 3 (=)

    The Reform + Tories = ~50% lockstep remains in place.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,585
    Dura_Ace said:

    MattW said:

    A vaguely on topic sub-thread.

    How many rock bands were / are named after features of WW2. It seems to be what I might call a 1970s Crass thing.

    I have:

    Joy Division - forced camp brothels at Auschwitz etc. Choosing both names are very male things to do imo.
    Spandau Ballet - disputed, but allegedly the "death dance" done by a person being hanged, or shot with a machine gun.

    Half Man Half Biscuit was Hitler's favourite disparaging term for subordinates that displeased him.
    Is that true? Excellent if so.

    Heirs of Joy Division New Order a v.obvious example.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,478
    The Hiroshima bomb ushered in a new era of nuclear terror that only really ended in 1990. That nuclear spectre of an all out nuclear war dominated international politics. Sure, it's not entirely gone away but it isn't what it was.

    Without the horrors of the Hiroshima and the Nagasaki bombs, and just test blasts, would the world have stepped over the brink? Maybe.

    I am not convinced that the 2 bombs were intrinsically less moral than the bombing of Wassaw, Rotterdam, Coventry, Stalingrad, Dresden or worst of all the Tokyo firebombing. All were targeted at civilians in a way that we would be appalled at now. All were evil.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 13,194
    eek said:

    Morning all. Tories woes pile up as they fall to their lowest yet with More in Common this week and Reform equal their best

    Ref 31 (+2)
    Lab 22 (-1)
    Con 18 (-2)
    LD 14 (+1)
    Grn 7 (=)
    SNP 3 (=)

    The Reform + Tories = ~50% lockstep remains in place.
    Yes its very consistent. Theres not been a real outlier of that for a while (talks it up!)
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,026
    eek said:

    Morning all. Tories woes pile up as they fall to their lowest yet with More in Common this week and Reform equal their best

    Ref 31 (+2)
    Lab 22 (-1)
    Con 18 (-2)
    LD 14 (+1)
    Grn 7 (=)
    SNP 3 (=)

    The Reform + Tories = ~50% lockstep remains in place.
    Yet only 44% with YouGov so consistent inconsistency across the pollsters currently.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,187
    Foxy said:

    The Hiroshima bomb ushered in a new era of nuclear terror that only really ended in 1990. That nuclear spectre of an all out nuclear war dominated international politics. Sure, it's not entirely gone away but it isn't what it was.

    Without the horrors of the Hiroshima and the Nagasaki bombs, and just test blasts, would the world have stepped over the brink? Maybe.

    I am not convinced that the 2 bombs were intrinsically less moral than the bombing of Wassaw, Rotterdam, Coventry, Stalingrad, Dresden or worst of all the Tokyo firebombing. All were targeted at civilians in a way that we would be appalled at now. All were evil.

    "would be" –> are, ref Russia in Ukraine

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,991
    edited August 6
    The interesting thing is, had the UK/US not already been fighting Germany, (edit: yes
    I know the US didn't come in until the end of 1941) Japan wouldn't even have had the successes they did in 1941.

    They only did so because attention was absent or divided, once it was not complete defeat was rapid and inevitable - despite the horrific casualties.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,991

    ydoethur said:

    Not an expert on the atom bombings, but also wasn't it the case that the Americans didn't fully realise the devastation they would cause? Particularly the longer term effects, which we now have a much greater awareness of.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing sometimes.

    I believe *some* Americans were very curious to see just what atom bombs would do to a real city and real human beings rather than empty desert. There was also the bonus of putting the shits up Stalin.
    Preventing the slaughter of a full born invasion is a perfectly defensible moral position but as ever plenty of less noble motives swirling about.
    Yes, that's basically it.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,138
    Foxy said:

    The Hiroshima bomb ushered in a new era of nuclear terror that only really ended in 1990. That nuclear spectre of an all out nuclear war dominated international politics. Sure, it's not entirely gone away but it isn't what it was.

    Without the horrors of the Hiroshima and the Nagasaki bombs, and just test blasts, would the world have stepped over the brink? Maybe.

    I am not convinced that the 2 bombs were intrinsically less moral than the bombing of Wassaw, Rotterdam, Coventry, Stalingrad, Dresden or worst of all the Tokyo firebombing. All were targeted at civilians in a way that we would be appalled at now. All were evil.

    Up to a point. In the early stages of the war, area bombing was used in part because targeting was notoriously bad, so much so that destroying military infrastructure took multiple hundred-bomber raids before quite by chance a bomb landed somewhere near the target. It was only later in the war that accurate bomb sights were developed (in America iirc). One other problem in Japan was there were no military targets left. Even in Germany, by the end it was basically insurgents fighting a guerrilla war amidst the rubble (cf Gaza).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,179
    Nigelb said:

    Arguably ww2 might have ended sooner if the Axis powers had not insisted on fighting on when it was obvious they had already lost. (Some would respond that Allied insistence on unconditional surrender rather than armistice pointed the same way.)

    The Red Army was invading from the north using millions of troops no longer fighting the Nazis since VE Day. The Allies had naval and air supremacy, allowing USAF to firebomb Japanese cities at will. Japan by the end had no hope, as was obvious to anyone bar its military leaders following the cult of the Samurai. Thankfully Hirohito fell for the American atom bomb bluff – that they could drop one a day until there were no Japanese cities left, when in truth they had built only two bombs and could not make more for months.

    That's one account.
    More likely is that Hirohito used the shock of the bomb to get the military to give up - having started the effort in June of that year.
    The Japanese war cabinet was deadlocked 3-3

    This was after both atomic bombs, the Russians in the war and slaughtering the Japanese army. The Americans had stopped building submarines - because there was nothing left to sink. Shipping had completely stopped. Allied battleships were bombarding the Japanese coast - in sight of land. The rice harvest had failed and would mean mass starvation that winter.

    The plan was to carry on fighting - mass suicide attack on an American invasion. Including the entire post 12 aged population, armed with bamboo spears. Yes, really. Because in the best Hagakure style death was better than dishonour.

    At this point Hirohito broke the rules and announced he was voting. And ended the war.

    The War Faction responded by launching a coup. Which only failed because of a blackout caused by a conventional American air raid.

    They even tried to launch a kamikaze attack on the American fleet after the surrender message was sent. What happened is unclear - it seems possible that they were shot down by *Japanese* aircraft, directly ordered by the Emperor.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 1,304
    geoffw said:

    Foxy said:

    The Hiroshima bomb ushered in a new era of nuclear terror that only really ended in 1990. That nuclear spectre of an all out nuclear war dominated international politics. Sure, it's not entirely gone away but it isn't what it was.

    Without the horrors of the Hiroshima and the Nagasaki bombs, and just test blasts, would the world have stepped over the brink? Maybe.

    I am not convinced that the 2 bombs were intrinsically less moral than the bombing of Wassaw, Rotterdam, Coventry, Stalingrad, Dresden or worst of all the Tokyo firebombing. All were targeted at civilians in a way that we would be appalled at now. All were evil.

    "would be" –> are, ref Russia in Ukraine

    One of the emerging issues if Russia were to take over Ukraine is that Russia would have access to even more drone technology. That and the Iranian supply would be a major advantage if other territorial ambitions were in play which in IMHO they are.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,794
    edited August 6
    Foxy said:

    The Hiroshima bomb ushered in a new era of nuclear terror that only really ended in 1990. That nuclear spectre of an all out nuclear war dominated international politics. Sure, it's not entirely gone away but it isn't what it was.

    Without the horrors of the Hiroshima and the Nagasaki bombs, and just test blasts, would the world have stepped over the brink? Maybe.

    I am not convinced that the 2 bombs were intrinsically less moral than the bombing of Wassaw, Rotterdam, Coventry, Stalingrad, Dresden or worst of all the Tokyo firebombing. All were targeted at civilians in a way that we would be appalled at now. All were evil.

    The header references life giving not good optionsbut least worst options. At its core, that does mean least evil options.

    Defending against an aggressor.

    Edited autocorrect.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,889

    Dura_Ace said:

    MattW said:

    A vaguely on topic sub-thread.

    How many rock bands were / are named after features of WW2. It seems to be what I might call a 1970s Crass thing.

    I have:

    Joy Division - forced camp brothels at Auschwitz etc. Choosing both names are very male things to do imo.
    Spandau Ballet - disputed, but allegedly the "death dance" done by a person being hanged, or shot with a machine gun.

    Half Man Half Biscuit was Hitler's favourite disparaging term for subordinates that displeased him.
    Is that true? Excellent if so.

    Heirs of Joy Division New Order a v.obvious example.

    That was one on the edge of my memory. I recall an interview where one of the New Order people said essentially "we f*cked the name up - twice.", but I've no idea which individual it was.

    Even if it is not WW2 associated (possible) if the name is chosen it will be so associated.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,920

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Not an expert on the atom bombings, but also wasn't it the case that the Americans didn't fully realise the devastation they would cause? ...

    That's fairly likely.
    Most of the scientists on the project did; the rest not so much.

    Truman didn't really even make the decision to drop the second bomb - he'd effectively handed over operational control to the military, once the decision to use a nuclear weapon had been made. The strict decision protocols didn't come into existence until quite a bit later.
    Richard Rhodes covers it quite well - there have been some minor updates.

    The reason for two bombs being dropped was assumed by everyone in the project.

    There were two routes to the bomb (there are more, but it’s not sure anyone has ever used them) - Uranium 235 and Plutonium 239.

    Plutonium was a secret at this point. Extracting Uranium 235 by enrichment (what the Iranians are going for) is a vast, expensive business*. More so at the time, when it had to be invented.

    The Japanese knew all about the theory of nuclear fission. And had done some lab scale experiments in Uranium separation. Most physicists at the time thought it was either impossible or would take years to extract enough to make one bomb.

    Indeed, immediately after Hiroshima, Japanese physicists told the Japanese government that it might take years for the Americans to make a second bomb.

    Nagasaki was about making the production line evident.

    *To run one of half a dozen processes, the US used all the silver bullion in the Treasury (thousands of tons) to make wire for electromagnets.
    That demonstrates my point.
    The little matter of 70,000 odd deaths from targeting Nagasaki, in order to make the production line evident, was a delegated decision.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,179

    Foxy said:

    The Hiroshima bomb ushered in a new era of nuclear terror that only really ended in 1990. That nuclear spectre of an all out nuclear war dominated international politics. Sure, it's not entirely gone away but it isn't what it was.

    Without the horrors of the Hiroshima and the Nagasaki bombs, and just test blasts, would the world have stepped over the brink? Maybe.

    I am not convinced that the 2 bombs were intrinsically less moral than the bombing of Wassaw, Rotterdam, Coventry, Stalingrad, Dresden or worst of all the Tokyo firebombing. All were targeted at civilians in a way that we would be appalled at now. All were evil.

    Up to a point. In the early stages of the war, area bombing was used in part because targeting was notoriously bad, so much so that destroying military infrastructure took multiple hundred-bomber raids before quite by chance a bomb landed somewhere near the target. It was only later in the war that accurate bomb sights were developed (in America iirc). One other problem in Japan was there were no military targets left. Even in Germany, by the end it was basically insurgents fighting a guerrilla war amidst the rubble (cf Gaza).
    The Norden didn’t create accuracy. Hence the shotgun effect of American daylight raids.

    Nearly every country had produced a similar computing bombsight.

    The problem was, to get accuracy, you needed to fly in a straight line at fixed speed. In daylight. This was found to require Victoria Cross levels of courage.

    What produced crazy accuracy - plus or minus a few yards - was Oboe. At night. This electronic navigation system was so accurate that it found errors in how maps were joined together - the maps were about 200 yards off.

    By the end of the war, a “playing card” formation of Mosquitos (5 typically) could virtually guarantee a hit on a point target - 90%+ - one of their bombs would get the target. From 30k feet at night.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 13,194
    stodge said:

    eek said:

    Morning all. Tories woes pile up as they fall to their lowest yet with More in Common this week and Reform equal their best

    Ref 31 (+2)
    Lab 22 (-1)
    Con 18 (-2)
    LD 14 (+1)
    Grn 7 (=)
    SNP 3 (=)

    The Reform + Tories = ~50% lockstep remains in place.
    Yet only 44% with YouGov so consistent inconsistency across the pollsters currently.
    YouGov is very consistent in showing a lower RefCon than all the other pollsters.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,920
    Battlebus said:

    geoffw said:

    Foxy said:

    The Hiroshima bomb ushered in a new era of nuclear terror that only really ended in 1990. That nuclear spectre of an all out nuclear war dominated international politics. Sure, it's not entirely gone away but it isn't what it was.

    Without the horrors of the Hiroshima and the Nagasaki bombs, and just test blasts, would the world have stepped over the brink? Maybe.

    I am not convinced that the 2 bombs were intrinsically less moral than the bombing of Wassaw, Rotterdam, Coventry, Stalingrad, Dresden or worst of all the Tokyo firebombing. All were targeted at civilians in a way that we would be appalled at now. All were evil.

    "would be" –> are, ref Russia in Ukraine

    One of the emerging issues if Russia were to take over Ukraine is that Russia would have access to even more drone technology. That and the Iranian supply would be a major advantage if other territorial ambitions were in play which in IMHO they are.
    And production capacity.
    And manpower.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,138

    The interesting thing is, had the UK/US not already been fighting Germany, (edit: yes
    I know the US didn't come in until the end of 1941) Japan wouldn't even have had the successes they did in 1941.

    They only did so because attention was absent or divided, once it was not complete defeat was rapid and inevitable - despite the horrific casualties.

    Hard to say. Presumably Britain would have been better placed to defend Malaya (as was), Singapore and what have you, but then nothing Japan did made much sense anyway. We forget Japan had conquered and occupied part of China for the best part of a decade which did them no real good. Expanding the war just brought them more enemies. I guess you could say that attacking the British colonies would give access to resources they were not getting from China, but bringing America into the war in order to prove its navy better than its army was plain bonkers.

    But war is not rational, especially for the instigator. Ask Hamas or VVP what happens if the enemy fights back.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,416
    @TSE "My view is that the bombings ultimately saved more lives than they killed"

    Including those that died from radiation long after the Japanese surrender?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,053
    Off topic: Contrary to the doom and gloom on here about the state of the public finances, the OBR seem to think the first three months of 2025-26 are going to plan (well, what the OBR forecasted):

    https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/PSF-commentary-June-2025.pdf

    This morning’s ONS release estimates that borrowing in the first three months of 2025-26 totalled £57.8 billion. This is £7.5 billion above the same period last year, which is exactly in line with our March forecast monthly profile. Central government receipts and spending are both broadly in line with the forecast profile.

    In the monthly profile consistent with the forecast in the March Economic and fiscal outlook we expect lower borrowing in the second half of 2025-26 relative to 2024-25. This is based on a sharp expected rise in capital gains tax around the end-January due date, lower debt interest payments in the second half of the year, and lower central government net social benefits which were unusually backloaded last year.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,585
    edited August 6
    Sean_F said:

    It's curious that there should be such differing responses to the strategic bombing, and the use of atomic weapons.

    Personally, I'm with Sir Arthur Harris, on this:

    The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.

    I don’t know if Bomber was entirely correct in this, I think bomb shelters were being incorporated in newly built German houses and factories even before the accession of AH & co. Otoh I can entirely believe that the blustery Göring view that no bomber could get through the magnificent Reich defences was promoted.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,416
    Sean_F said:

    It's curious that there should be such differing responses to the strategic bombing, and the use of atomic weapons.

    Personally, I'm with Sir Arthur Harris, on this:

    The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.

    How many Germans died from radiation poisoning after ze war?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,138
    No news today?

    One thing Leon missed (unless I missed Leon not missing it) was the Speculum (as apparently we now call it) won a libel action. The interesting thing is that one of the lawyers has the same name of a former pb stalwart (although iirc Morus was based in America so it's probably just a coincidence).

    Mohammed Hegab v The Spectator (1828) Limited & Anor
    https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/2043
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,138
    tlg86 said:

    Off topic: Contrary to the doom and gloom on here about the state of the public finances, the OBR seem to think the first three months of 2025-26 are going to plan (well, what the OBR forecasted):

    https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/PSF-commentary-June-2025.pdf

    This morning’s ONS release estimates that borrowing in the first three months of 2025-26 totalled £57.8 billion. This is £7.5 billion above the same period last year, which is exactly in line with our March forecast monthly profile. Central government receipts and spending are both broadly in line with the forecast profile.

    In the monthly profile consistent with the forecast in the March Economic and fiscal outlook we expect lower borrowing in the second half of 2025-26 relative to 2024-25. This is based on a sharp expected rise in capital gains tax around the end-January due date, lower debt interest payments in the second half of the year, and lower central government net social benefits which were unusually backloaded last year.

    As I've always said, Rachel Reeves is our greatest Chancellor since Gordon Brown. Huzzah for the OBR. And a reminder that all economic statistics are rubbish.
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,094
    No easy options for Rachel Reeves.

    Taxes to be raised to cover £49 billion shortfall by end of parliament.

    We are really in a mess. Anaemic growth and a burgeoning debt and borrowing costs.

    Not all labours fault. Tory legacy was shit and the two NI cuts reckless but she’s played a bad hand poorly.


    https://x.com/salisburysuk/status/1952982735460679777?s=61
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,478

    The interesting thing is, had the UK/US not already been fighting Germany, (edit: yes
    I know the US didn't come in until the end of 1941) Japan wouldn't even have had the successes they did in 1941.

    They only did so because attention was absent or divided, once it was not complete defeat was rapid and inevitable - despite the horrific casualties.

    The Japanese Army, Navy and Airforce were very effective from December 1941 to mid 1942 with victory after victory against what appeared on paper to be strong Allied forces, often numerically superior. We surrendered at Singapore to an Army one third the size. The defeat in Burma was nearly as total, with only a tiny force escaping over the hills to India. The Japanese were well trained and equipped, with a particularly modern navy and airforce.

    It was the inability to resupply and replace that defeated the Japanese forces, despite capturing the oil and rubber of the Dutch East Indies. They couldn't replace the ships lot at Midway, and the retreat from Port Moresby in the battle of the track was as much due to supply logistics as to dogged Australian resistance.

    Fierce fighting was still going on even in the weeks prior to the Hiroshima bomb. An Australian cousin was decorated in this campaign in July 1945.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aitape–Wewak_campaign

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,138
    Franz Ferdinand is another band whose name does not bear much thinking about, although from the ‘war to end all wars’.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,889
    edited August 6
    This is my piccie for the day.

    A screenshot from Marine Traffic showing AIS (ie nav beacons) of ships going along rivers into Russia from the far north as far down as eg Mongolia. It's growth is one side effect of the North Asia route opening up, though I'm sure the trade has been there for a long time. You will probably need to enlarge for detail.


    Source is my favourite shipping Youtube channel, this deep link:
    https://youtu.be/PZdSAIMoI2w?t=359

    (If I need a link to WW2, at least one German Commerce Raider entered the Pacific by going the Northern Route - before they fell out with Stalin.)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,717
    edited August 6
    FPT
    Fishing said:

    Cicero said:

    Fishing said:

    Barack Obama

    @BarackObama
    ·
    37m
    We can’t lose focus on what matters – right now, Republicans in Texas are trying to gerrymander district lines to unfairly win five seats in next year’s midterm elections. This is a power grab that undermines our democracy.

    https://x.com/BarackObama/status/1952841189310300581

    ... because the Democrats have never, ever tried to gerrymander of course. Oh no.

    Non-political districting is the only sensible way forward, but weirdly Democrats seem about as reluctant as Republicans to implement it.

    We can be extremely grateful that that kind of gerrymandering doesn't happen in this country (except for the LibDems and the Western Isles constituency of course, which they have since lost anyway).
    The boundary commission takes these decisions under strong scrutiny from all parties, so no idea what you are insinuating re: "Western Islands", which the Lib Dems have never held. Sounds like ignorant abuse rather than any informed comment.

    Uniquely, what you say about boundaries is not true in the case of the Western Isles - the Boundary Commission cannot amalgamate the boundaries of that constituency, unlike every other constituency in the country. Clegg insisted on including that in the 2011 Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act that as the Lib Dems had traditionally been popular there, and Cameron understandably agreed to get the Act through. It has 21k electors compared with more than three times that for the average UK constituency.

    In fact, of course, they did disastrously in the subsequent election, and have never recovered. So his gerrymandering didn't help his party.

    So I'm afraid the ignorant abuse comes from you.
    Here is a list of election results in Na h-Eileanan an Iar (the Western Isles).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na_h-Eileanan_an_Iar_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

    The last time the Liberals or Liberal Democrats secured over 8% of the vote in that seat was in 1966. The last time they won it was in 1929 (or 1931 if you count the National Liberals as Liberals).

    You still appear to be confusing it with Orkney and Shetland.

    Edit - the same logic was applied to Orkney/Shetland, Ynys Mon and the Isle of Wight (two seats).
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,138
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,179

    @TSE "My view is that the bombings ultimately saved more lives than they killed"

    Including those that died from radiation long after the Japanese surrender?

    @TSE "My view is that the bombings ultimately saved more lives than they killed"

    Including those that died from radiation long after the Japanese surrender?

    Yes

    The Japanese plan was to die fighting the invasion - mass suicide attacks. Including the civilian population, armed with bamboo spears.

    There was also a famine coming - the Japanese Military plan to deal with that was to reserve food for the military and let the civilians starve.

    The US military casualties were computed using the results of previous battles. They were stilling using the Purple Hearts (medals for the wounded) made in response to the expected numbers, today.

    The invasion of Japan would have been a mass slaughter. It would have killed millions of Japanese - probably a serious percentage of the entire population.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,920
    Foxy said:

    The Hiroshima bomb ushered in a new era of nuclear terror that only really ended in 1990. That nuclear spectre of an all out nuclear war dominated international politics. Sure, it's not entirely gone away but it isn't what it was.

    Without the horrors of the Hiroshima and the Nagasaki bombs, and just test blasts, would the world have stepped over the brink? Maybe.

    I am not convinced that the 2 bombs were intrinsically less moral than the bombing of Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry, Stalingrad, Dresden or worst of all the Tokyo firebombing. All were targeted at civilians in a way that we would be appalled at now. All were evil.

    The US actually overestimated the likely number of casualties from their conventional fire bombing campaign before it started - at over half a million dead, and a similar number wounded - so it was entirely intentional in a moral sense.

    (As it happened, after the first major raid on Tokyo killed 100,000, better preparation reduced the numbers in later raid by an order of magnitude.)

    I'd agree the Hiroshima bomb was no less moral than the earlier raids; all were intentional mass killing of civilians.
    And Hiroshima might have ended the war at a stroke.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,138
    In unrelated news, Masterchef starts tonight.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,358
    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    Fishing said:

    Cicero said:

    Fishing said:

    Barack Obama

    @BarackObama
    ·
    37m
    We can’t lose focus on what matters – right now, Republicans in Texas are trying to gerrymander district lines to unfairly win five seats in next year’s midterm elections. This is a power grab that undermines our democracy.

    https://x.com/BarackObama/status/1952841189310300581

    ... because the Democrats have never, ever tried to gerrymander of course. Oh no.

    Non-political districting is the only sensible way forward, but weirdly Democrats seem about as reluctant as Republicans to implement it.

    We can be extremely grateful that that kind of gerrymandering doesn't happen in this country (except for the LibDems and the Western Isles constituency of course, which they have since lost anyway).
    The boundary commission takes these decisions under strong scrutiny from all parties, so no idea what you are insinuating re: "Western Islands", which the Lib Dems have never held. Sounds like ignorant abuse rather than any informed comment.

    Uniquely, what you say about boundaries is not true in the case of the Western Isles - the Boundary Commission cannot amalgamate the boundaries of that constituency, unlike every other constituency in the country. Clegg insisted on including that in the 2011 Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act that as the Lib Dems had traditionally been popular there, and Cameron understandably agreed to get the Act through. It has 21k electors compared with more than three times that for the average UK constituency.

    In fact, of course, they did disastrously in the subsequent election, and have never recovered. So his gerrymandering didn't help his party.

    So I'm afraid the ignorant abuse comes from you.
    Here is a list of election results in Na h-Eileanan an Iar (the Western Isles).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na_h-Eileanan_an_Iar_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

    The last time the Liberals or Liberal Democrats secured over 8% of the vote in that seat was in 1966. The last time they won it was in 1929 (or 1931 if you count the National Liberals as Liberals).

    You still appear to be confusing it with Orkney and Shetland.
    Ynys Mon, Orkney and Shetland and the Isle of Wight were also excepted in Dave's drive for equal constituencies.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,026
    edited August 6
    Taz said:

    No easy options for Rachel Reeves.

    Taxes to be raised to cover £49 billion shortfall by end of parliament.

    We are really in a mess. Anaemic growth and a burgeoning debt and borrowing costs.

    Not all labours fault. Tory legacy was shit and the two NI cuts reckless but she’s played a bad hand poorly.


    https://x.com/salisburysuk/status/1952982735460679777?s=61

    There was a time when those of us concerned about Government borrowing were slapped down by Government supporters (now Opposition supporters) who asserted borrowing was fine and we could just keep doing it.

    £50 billion by 2028/9 isn't quite as bad as it sounds and it'll be easy for some to think that means £50 billion of tax rises now which it doesn't.

    Again, we come back to the questions which have afflicted us since 2008 - to reduce the deficit and reduce borrowing, what do we do? Do we raise taxes, do we cut spending? Do we do both? If we do the former, which taxes do we raise? If we do the latter, which areas of public spending do we cut and what will be the impact of both the tax rises and the spending cuts?

    Rather like the "boats", plenty of complaining and plenty pointing out the problem but little in the way of practical, workable and coherent solutions. I do think Starmer and Reeves were unwise in ruling out changes to Income Tax and VAT before the election - that was boxing themselves into a corner for no reason.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,053
    stodge said:

    Taz said:

    No easy options for Rachel Reeves.

    Taxes to be raised to cover £49 billion shortfall by end of parliament.

    We are really in a mess. Anaemic growth and a burgeoning debt and borrowing costs.

    Not all labours fault. Tory legacy was shit and the two NI cuts reckless but she’s played a bad hand poorly.


    https://x.com/salisburysuk/status/1952982735460679777?s=61

    There was a time when those of us concerned about Government borrowing were slapped down by Government supporters (now Opposition supporters) who asserted borrowing was fine and we could just keep doing it.
    Receipts please.
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,094
    I’m sure it will be a roaring success with a universally popular, not at all divisive, host.

    Maybe as successful as Genius Game on the same channel.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,889

    @TSE "My view is that the bombings ultimately saved more lives than they killed"

    Including those that died from radiation long after the Japanese surrender?

    I'm sure the numbers have been estimated.

    I think the answer is that yes, as a brute calculation more lives probably were saved by dropping the bomb. Forecast allied deaths for an invasion were of the order of 250k to 1 million, with the same for the Japanese. Plus wounded (3-4x as many?). Plus civilians.

    But it's all guestimates and orders of magnitude.

    But were more Japanese not killed by conventional area bombing than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,194
    Sean_F said:

    It's curious that there should be such differing responses to the strategic bombing, and the use of atomic weapons.

    Personally, I'm with Sir Arthur Harris, on this:

    The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.

    Sounds like Putin going into Ukraine three years ago, thinking his troops would be welcomed with open arms instead of military arms like NLAWs and Javelins.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,717
    edited August 6
    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    Fishing said:

    Cicero said:

    Fishing said:

    Barack Obama

    @BarackObama
    ·
    37m
    We can’t lose focus on what matters – right now, Republicans in Texas are trying to gerrymander district lines to unfairly win five seats in next year’s midterm elections. This is a power grab that undermines our democracy.

    https://x.com/BarackObama/status/1952841189310300581

    ... because the Democrats have never, ever tried to gerrymander of course. Oh no.

    Non-political districting is the only sensible way forward, but weirdly Democrats seem about as reluctant as Republicans to implement it.

    We can be extremely grateful that that kind of gerrymandering doesn't happen in this country (except for the LibDems and the Western Isles constituency of course, which they have since lost anyway).
    The boundary commission takes these decisions under strong scrutiny from all parties, so no idea what you are insinuating re: "Western Islands", which the Lib Dems have never held. Sounds like ignorant abuse rather than any informed comment.

    Uniquely, what you say about boundaries is not true in the case of the Western Isles - the Boundary Commission cannot amalgamate the boundaries of that constituency, unlike every other constituency in the country. Clegg insisted on including that in the 2011 Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act that as the Lib Dems had traditionally been popular there, and Cameron understandably agreed to get the Act through. It has 21k electors compared with more than three times that for the average UK constituency.

    In fact, of course, they did disastrously in the subsequent election, and have never recovered. So his gerrymandering didn't help his party.

    So I'm afraid the ignorant abuse comes from you.
    Here is a list of election results in Na h-Eileanan an Iar (the Western Isles).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na_h-Eileanan_an_Iar_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

    The last time the Liberals or Liberal Democrats secured over 8% of the vote in that seat was in 1966. The last time they won it was in 1929 (or 1931 if you count the National Liberals as Liberals).

    You still appear to be confusing it with Orkney and Shetland.
    Ynys Mon, Orkney and Shetland and the Isle of Wight were also excepted in Dave's drive for equal constituencies.
    I'm wondering if actually it's the Isle of Wight (which is an ex-Lib Dem seat where their vote has collapsed) he's thinking of.

    But that was a thing the Conservatives wanted anyway and actually they were right to want it. The Isle of Wight, the Outer Hebrides and Orkney and Shetland are all rather special cases.

    Ynys Mon perhaps less so, but as it's one of the poorest and most neglected areas in the whole UK I'm not sorry it's got a dedicated MP.
  • TazTaz Posts: 20,094
    stodge said:

    Taz said:

    No easy options for Rachel Reeves.

    Taxes to be raised to cover £49 billion shortfall by end of parliament.

    We are really in a mess. Anaemic growth and a burgeoning debt and borrowing costs.

    Not all labours fault. Tory legacy was shit and the two NI cuts reckless but she’s played a bad hand poorly.


    https://x.com/salisburysuk/status/1952982735460679777?s=61

    There was a time when those of us concerned about Government borrowing were slapped down by Government supporters (now Opposition supporters) who asserted borrowing was fine and we could just keep doing it.

    £50 billion by 2028/9 isn't quite as bad as it sounds and it'll be easy for some to think that means £50 billion of tax rises now which it doesn't.

    Again, we come back to the questions which have afflicted us since 2008 - to reduce the deficit and reduce borrowing, what do we do? Do we raise taxes, do we cut spending? Do we do both? If we do the former, which taxes do we raise? If we do the latter, which areas of public spending do we cut and what will be the impact of both the tax rises and the spending cuts?

    Rather like the "boats", plenty of complaining and plenty pointing out the problem but little in the way of practical, workable and coherent solutions. I do think Starmer and Reeves were unwise in ruling out changes to Income Tax and VAT before the election - that was boxing themselves into a corner for no reason.
    You’re quite right. The Ming vase strategy was an error. They’re also unwise ruling out reform to The Triple Lock and the public sector pensions that are unfunded.

    The should just bite the bullet, break a pledge or two, and raise income tax as well as looking at council tax bands/land tax for starters.

    But it’s a mammoth task and not an easy one especially given they fold to their backbenchers when trying to make modest changes to spending as we saw with welfare. A so called cut was simply slowing the rate of growth.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,926
    edited August 6

    There's a possibility the US may yet save us from Chagos. It's the hope that kills you...

    https://order-order.com/2025/08/05/exc-trump-could-still-block-starmers-chagos-deal-after-house-appropriations-intervention/

    Honestly I would rather just give the bloody thing to America, at least we wouldn't have to pay them to take it.

    I expect even if the deal is scrapped, Starmer will probably send a whole load of cash to Mauritius anyway.
    ~ "Britain made a commitment"
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,717
    Taz said:

    stodge said:

    Taz said:

    No easy options for Rachel Reeves.

    Taxes to be raised to cover £49 billion shortfall by end of parliament.

    We are really in a mess. Anaemic growth and a burgeoning debt and borrowing costs.

    Not all labours fault. Tory legacy was shit and the two NI cuts reckless but she’s played a bad hand poorly.


    https://x.com/salisburysuk/status/1952982735460679777?s=61

    There was a time when those of us concerned about Government borrowing were slapped down by Government supporters (now Opposition supporters) who asserted borrowing was fine and we could just keep doing it.

    £50 billion by 2028/9 isn't quite as bad as it sounds and it'll be easy for some to think that means £50 billion of tax rises now which it doesn't.

    Again, we come back to the questions which have afflicted us since 2008 - to reduce the deficit and reduce borrowing, what do we do? Do we raise taxes, do we cut spending? Do we do both? If we do the former, which taxes do we raise? If we do the latter, which areas of public spending do we cut and what will be the impact of both the tax rises and the spending cuts?

    Rather like the "boats", plenty of complaining and plenty pointing out the problem but little in the way of practical, workable and coherent solutions. I do think Starmer and Reeves were unwise in ruling out changes to Income Tax and VAT before the election - that was boxing themselves into a corner for no reason.
    You’re quite right. The Ming vase strategy was an error. They’re also unwise ruling out reform to The Triple Lock and the public sector pensions that are unfunded.
    The ghost of Theresa May's 2017 campaign would beg to differ.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,138
    Taz said:

    I’m sure it will be a roaring success with a universally popular, not at all divisive, host.

    Maybe as successful as Genius Game on the same channel.
    Like him or not, Gary Lineker is good at the telly game. Like Brucey, Ant & Dec, Noel Edmonds, Graham Norton, Jeremy Clarkson and no doubt a few others, even if you don't care for their programmes, you can admire their craft.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,053
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    stodge said:

    Taz said:

    No easy options for Rachel Reeves.

    Taxes to be raised to cover £49 billion shortfall by end of parliament.

    We are really in a mess. Anaemic growth and a burgeoning debt and borrowing costs.

    Not all labours fault. Tory legacy was shit and the two NI cuts reckless but she’s played a bad hand poorly.


    https://x.com/salisburysuk/status/1952982735460679777?s=61

    There was a time when those of us concerned about Government borrowing were slapped down by Government supporters (now Opposition supporters) who asserted borrowing was fine and we could just keep doing it.

    £50 billion by 2028/9 isn't quite as bad as it sounds and it'll be easy for some to think that means £50 billion of tax rises now which it doesn't.

    Again, we come back to the questions which have afflicted us since 2008 - to reduce the deficit and reduce borrowing, what do we do? Do we raise taxes, do we cut spending? Do we do both? If we do the former, which taxes do we raise? If we do the latter, which areas of public spending do we cut and what will be the impact of both the tax rises and the spending cuts?

    Rather like the "boats", plenty of complaining and plenty pointing out the problem but little in the way of practical, workable and coherent solutions. I do think Starmer and Reeves were unwise in ruling out changes to Income Tax and VAT before the election - that was boxing themselves into a corner for no reason.
    You’re quite right. The Ming vase strategy was an error. They’re also unwise ruling out reform to The Triple Lock and the public sector pensions that are unfunded.
    The ghost of Theresa May's 2017 campaign would beg to differ.
    Depends what they care about: getting into power or what's best for the country.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,448
    Nuclear weapons were going to be developed by someone. The ideas, and much of the science, was out there. The Manhattan Project got an initial boost by the incorporation of our Tube Alloys project; the Germans had a program; the Japanese had a program; the Russians had one from 1942 onwards.

    Someone was going to develop one.

    And although Hitler was against the use of chemical weapons, given his experience in WW1, he was not against the use of other 'vengeance' weapons. If he had a nuke, he would have used it. So would the Japanese (though a delivery system would have been problematic if they wanted to bomb the US...). Stalin would have nuked Berlin without a second's thought.

    Given that, it's probably best that the US did develop it first.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,766
    On topic, I don't think Truman's decision was difficult at all by the standards of big decisions during the most terrible war in history, nor is there any evidence that he regarded it as such as the time. The firebombing on Tokyo may have been bloodier than Hiroshima. Many people who expressed scruples later, like Lord Mountbatten, had developed them with decades of hindsight.

    They were a generation who were still enduring a war in which 50,000,000 had already died, entirely needlessly. Rotterdam, London, Coventry, Hamburg and Dresden weren't just words to them. Anything that was likely to end the agony quicker was worth trying. And the atom bombs were likely to, and indeed did, just that. They may also have contributed to avoiding a third world war with Stalin over Greece, Turkey or Berlin or a full war with Mao over Korea.

    So while I hope, entirely unrealistically, that no bomb, either conventional or nuclear, is ever used again, if there's a similar decision, whereby a quick nuclear strike will probably end a much bloodier conventional war, I hope whoever has the decision takes it.

    It is indeed ironic that the most devastating weapons man has ever devised may have saved more lives than most medical innovations.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,025
    stodge said:

    Taz said:

    No easy options for Rachel Reeves.

    Taxes to be raised to cover £49 billion shortfall by end of parliament.

    We are really in a mess. Anaemic growth and a burgeoning debt and borrowing costs.

    Not all labours fault. Tory legacy was shit and the two NI cuts reckless but she’s played a bad hand poorly.


    https://x.com/salisburysuk/status/1952982735460679777?s=61

    There was a time when those of us concerned about Government borrowing were slapped down by Government supporters (now Opposition supporters) who asserted borrowing was fine and we could just keep doing it.

    £50 billion by 2028/9 isn't quite as bad as it sounds and it'll be easy for some to think that means £50 billion of tax rises now which it doesn't.

    Again, we come back to the questions which have afflicted us since 2008 - to reduce the deficit and reduce borrowing, what do we do? Do we raise taxes, do we cut spending? Do we do both? If we do the former, which taxes do we raise? If we do the latter, which areas of public spending do we cut and what will be the impact of both the tax rises and the spending cuts?

    Rather like the "boats", plenty of complaining and plenty pointing out the problem but little in the way of practical, workable and coherent solutions. I do think Starmer and Reeves were unwise in ruling out changes to Income Tax and VAT before the election - that was boxing themselves into a corner for no reason.
    Indeed, £50bn by 2028/9 is about £300 per adult per year. Something those on a budget will notice, especially if its not mostly targeted at the wealthy, but it is perfectly manageable. £10bn of the £50bn is "headroom" so desirable but not actually needed.

    Freezing fuel duty has cost the govt £80bn in tax over the last decade. Petrol prices are similar to their 2010-2015 averages, far cheaper in real terms with inflation elsewhere. 5p on petrol feels an obvious one that should have been done last budget and makes a big dent in that 40/50bn.

    And £40bn or £50bn could easily be added or lost simply by the global economy improving or worsening.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 5,719
    The media intent on over dramatising any tax rises or cuts by failing to caveat those with the supposed gap being over 4 years . The way it’s being reported is Reeves needs to find those in one go .
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,766
    edited August 6
    Sorry - FPT on Lib Dem gerrymandering.
    Cicero said:

    Fishing said:

    Barack Obama

    @BarackObama
    ·
    37m
    We can’t lose focus on what matters – right now, Republicans in Texas are trying to gerrymander district lines to unfairly win five seats in next year’s midterm elections. This is a power grab that undermines our democracy.

    https://x.com/BarackObama/status/1952841189310300581

    ... because the Democrats have never, ever tried to gerrymander of course. Oh no.

    Non-political districting is the only sensible way forward, but weirdly Democrats seem about as reluctant as Republicans to implement it.

    We can be extremely grateful that that kind of gerrymandering doesn't happen in this country (except for the LibDems and the Western Isles constituency of course, which they have since lost anyway).
    The boundary commission takes these decisions under strong scrutiny from all parties, so no idea what you are insinuating re: "Western Islands", which the Lib Dems have never held. Sounds like ignorant abuse rather than any informed comment.

    Uniquely, what you say about boundaries is not true in the case of the Western Isles - the Boundary Commission cannot amalgamate the boundaries of that constituency, unlike every other constituency in the country. Clegg insisted on including that in the 2011 Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act that as the Lib Dems had traditionally been popular there, and Cameron understandably agreed to get the Act through. It has 21k electors compared with more than three times that for the average UK constituency.

    In fact, of course, they did disastrously in the subsequent election, and have never recovered. So his gerrymandering didn't help his party. And it should certainly be removed, like the other constitutional abortion that Lib Dem rigging, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, has been.

    So I'm afraid the ignorance comes from you.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,197
    *betting post*

    White vs Itauma

    Itauma is the great, er, white hope coming up from the amateurs (24-0-0, 12KO) while Whyte is the old war horse with a dodgy chin (or rather, a dodgy habit of getting sparked out via upper cut).

    And yes he is looking good since he turned professional (12-0-0, 10KO) However, if you look at Itauma's pro record there is nothing to see. Most of the people he has fought have been journeymen or people who have been minding their own business on a Thursday and been phoned up and asked to appear at York Hall on the Friday to fight Itauma.

    This is not to say that Itauma isn't super easy on the eye. He can bang and he is a boxer (cf AJ). But he hasn't faced anyone who can give him a proper run for his money and Whyte might just be that person. Although old(er), he is or can be a formidable opponent and I don't think Itauma will have faced anything like Whyte's resilience (as long as he avoids the upper cuts) or competence.

    Now, much of this is well known but on bf Itauma is 1.14 while Whyte is 9.2 with the draw at 32. Both the latter are worth a pound or two of anyone's money.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,889
    stodge said:

    Taz said:

    No easy options for Rachel Reeves.

    Taxes to be raised to cover £49 billion shortfall by end of parliament.

    We are really in a mess. Anaemic growth and a burgeoning debt and borrowing costs.

    Not all labours fault. Tory legacy was shit and the two NI cuts reckless but she’s played a bad hand poorly.


    https://x.com/salisburysuk/status/1952982735460679777?s=61

    There was a time when those of us concerned about Government borrowing were slapped down by Government supporters (now Opposition supporters) who asserted borrowing was fine and we could just keep doing it.

    £50 billion by 2028/9 isn't quite as bad as it sounds and it'll be easy for some to think that means £50 billion of tax rises now which it doesn't.

    Again, we come back to the questions which have afflicted us since 2008 - to reduce the deficit and reduce borrowing, what do we do? Do we raise taxes, do we cut spending? Do we do both? If we do the former, which taxes do we raise? If we do the latter, which areas of public spending do we cut and what will be the impact of both the tax rises and the spending cuts?

    Rather like the "boats", plenty of complaining and plenty pointing out the problem but little in the way of practical, workable and coherent solutions. I do think Starmer and Reeves were unwise in ruling out changes to Income Tax and VAT before the election - that was boxing themselves into a corner for no reason.
    I'm quite surprised how small that number is TBH.

    Let's hope that they are raised by at least a little more in some places so we can afford to start rebuilding at least some areas of our wrecked society.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,138
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    stodge said:

    Taz said:

    No easy options for Rachel Reeves.

    Taxes to be raised to cover £49 billion shortfall by end of parliament.

    We are really in a mess. Anaemic growth and a burgeoning debt and borrowing costs.

    Not all labours fault. Tory legacy was shit and the two NI cuts reckless but she’s played a bad hand poorly.


    https://x.com/salisburysuk/status/1952982735460679777?s=61

    There was a time when those of us concerned about Government borrowing were slapped down by Government supporters (now Opposition supporters) who asserted borrowing was fine and we could just keep doing it.

    £50 billion by 2028/9 isn't quite as bad as it sounds and it'll be easy for some to think that means £50 billion of tax rises now which it doesn't.

    Again, we come back to the questions which have afflicted us since 2008 - to reduce the deficit and reduce borrowing, what do we do? Do we raise taxes, do we cut spending? Do we do both? If we do the former, which taxes do we raise? If we do the latter, which areas of public spending do we cut and what will be the impact of both the tax rises and the spending cuts?

    Rather like the "boats", plenty of complaining and plenty pointing out the problem but little in the way of practical, workable and coherent solutions. I do think Starmer and Reeves were unwise in ruling out changes to Income Tax and VAT before the election - that was boxing themselves into a corner for no reason.
    You’re quite right. The Ming vase strategy was an error. They’re also unwise ruling out reform to The Triple Lock and the public sector pensions that are unfunded.
    The ghost of Theresa May's 2017 campaign would beg to differ.
    The problem with Theresa May's 2017 campaign was not social care but that Lynton Crosby had apparently not been told there was a new leader so crafted the campaign for David Cameron – confident in front of crowds and the camera, with no support from a sidelined Cabinet.

    What killed the Conservative majority in 2017 was the two terrorist outrages during the campaign itself, alongside insistence that Tory police cuts had made no difference. Suddenly Labour was the party of Law and Order.

    And parroting Crosby's slogan ‘strong and stable’ does not work when you are neither.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,081
    Taz said:

    No easy options for Rachel Reeves.

    Taxes to be raised to cover £49 billion shortfall by end of parliament.

    We are really in a mess. Anaemic growth and a burgeoning debt and borrowing costs.

    Not all labours fault. Tory legacy was shit and the two NI cuts reckless but she’s played a bad hand poorly.


    https://x.com/salisburysuk/status/1952982735460679777?s=61

    Absolutely agree of course that what they inherited was not Labour's fault; also that it is too early to expect them to have sorted it and put everything on the right track.

    However, what they are responsible for is planning and communications. I have no idea what their plan is for debt and deficit, for funding the interest payments and paying the loans back. I have no idea what their plan is for running a balanced budget, putting inflation under 2%, and borrowing only to invest.

    The same is true elsewhere. Housing, smashing the gangs, NHS etc. I don't expect it to be sorted, but the voters expect top quality, non evasive, question answering communication about their promises and plans.

    You can't blame the last government for your own failure to plan or communicate.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,448
    Fishing said:

    Sorry - FPT on Lib Dem gerrymandering.

    Cicero said:

    Fishing said:

    Barack Obama

    @BarackObama
    ·
    37m
    We can’t lose focus on what matters – right now, Republicans in Texas are trying to gerrymander district lines to unfairly win five seats in next year’s midterm elections. This is a power grab that undermines our democracy.

    https://x.com/BarackObama/status/1952841189310300581

    ... because the Democrats have never, ever tried to gerrymander of course. Oh no.

    Non-political districting is the only sensible way forward, but weirdly Democrats seem about as reluctant as Republicans to implement it.

    We can be extremely grateful that that kind of gerrymandering doesn't happen in this country (except for the LibDems and the Western Isles constituency of course, which they have since lost anyway).
    The boundary commission takes these decisions under strong scrutiny from all parties, so no idea what you are insinuating re: "Western Islands", which the Lib Dems have never held. Sounds like ignorant abuse rather than any informed comment.

    Uniquely, what you say about boundaries is not true in the case of the Western Isles - the Boundary Commission cannot amalgamate the boundaries of that constituency, unlike every other constituency in the country. Clegg insisted on including that in the 2011 Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act that as the Lib Dems had traditionally been popular there, and Cameron understandably agreed to get the Act through. It has 21k electors compared with more than three times that for the average UK constituency.

    In fact, of course, they did disastrously in the subsequent election, and have never recovered. So his gerrymandering didn't help his party. And it should certainly be removed, like the other constitutional abortion that Lib Dem rigging, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, has been.

    So I'm afraid the ignorance comes from you.
    I do wonder if that's a trait of gerrymandering: low-level attempts at gerrymandering by a party in power may often backfire on that party. e.g. voter ID, reducing voting age etc. Therefore to be sure to be effective, the gerrymandering needs to be larger and much more blatant?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,308
    The use of the atomic bombs certainly ended the war in Japan far quicker than an invasion would have done.

    However they were still first strike attacks and the use of nuclear weapons in a similar way today would not be justified given nuclear missiles today are even more powerful and deadly
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,717
    Fishing said:

    Sorry - FPT on Lib Dem gerrymandering.

    Cicero said:

    Fishing said:

    Barack Obama

    @BarackObama
    ·
    37m
    We can’t lose focus on what matters – right now, Republicans in Texas are trying to gerrymander district lines to unfairly win five seats in next year’s midterm elections. This is a power grab that undermines our democracy.

    https://x.com/BarackObama/status/1952841189310300581

    ... because the Democrats have never, ever tried to gerrymander of course. Oh no.

    Non-political districting is the only sensible way forward, but weirdly Democrats seem about as reluctant as Republicans to implement it.

    We can be extremely grateful that that kind of gerrymandering doesn't happen in this country (except for the LibDems and the Western Isles constituency of course, which they have since lost anyway).
    The boundary commission takes these decisions under strong scrutiny from all parties, so no idea what you are insinuating re: "Western Islands", which the Lib Dems have never held. Sounds like ignorant abuse rather than any informed comment.

    Uniquely, what you say about boundaries is not true in the case of the Western Isles - the Boundary Commission cannot amalgamate the boundaries of that constituency, unlike every other constituency in the country. Clegg insisted on including that in the 2011 Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act that as the Lib Dems had traditionally been popular there, and Cameron understandably agreed to get the Act through. It has 21k electors compared with more than three times that for the average UK constituency.

    In fact, of course, they did disastrously in the subsequent election, and have never recovered. So his gerrymandering didn't help his party. And it should certainly be removed, like the other constitutional abortion that Lib Dem rigging, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, has been.

    So I'm afraid the ignorance comes from you.
    Is that the first time ever that a post has been comprehensively debunked on a thread before it's even been posted?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,308

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    stodge said:

    Taz said:

    No easy options for Rachel Reeves.

    Taxes to be raised to cover £49 billion shortfall by end of parliament.

    We are really in a mess. Anaemic growth and a burgeoning debt and borrowing costs.

    Not all labours fault. Tory legacy was shit and the two NI cuts reckless but she’s played a bad hand poorly.


    https://x.com/salisburysuk/status/1952982735460679777?s=61

    There was a time when those of us concerned about Government borrowing were slapped down by Government supporters (now Opposition supporters) who asserted borrowing was fine and we could just keep doing it.

    £50 billion by 2028/9 isn't quite as bad as it sounds and it'll be easy for some to think that means £50 billion of tax rises now which it doesn't.

    Again, we come back to the questions which have afflicted us since 2008 - to reduce the deficit and reduce borrowing, what do we do? Do we raise taxes, do we cut spending? Do we do both? If we do the former, which taxes do we raise? If we do the latter, which areas of public spending do we cut and what will be the impact of both the tax rises and the spending cuts?

    Rather like the "boats", plenty of complaining and plenty pointing out the problem but little in the way of practical, workable and coherent solutions. I do think Starmer and Reeves were unwise in ruling out changes to Income Tax and VAT before the election - that was boxing themselves into a corner for no reason.
    You’re quite right. The Ming vase strategy was an error. They’re also unwise ruling out reform to The Triple Lock and the public sector pensions that are unfunded.
    The ghost of Theresa May's 2017 campaign would beg to differ.
    The problem with Theresa May's 2017 campaign was not social care but that Lynton Crosby had apparently not been told there was a new leader so crafted the campaign for David Cameron – confident in front of crowds and the camera, with no support from a sidelined Cabinet.

    What killed the Conservative majority in 2017 was the two terrorist outrages during the campaign itself, alongside insistence that Tory police cuts had made no difference. Suddenly Labour was the party of Law and Order.

    And parroting Crosby's slogan ‘strong and stable’ does not work when you are neither.
    It was social care, I canvassed Tory leaners in Ilford North who said they were now going Labour the week after May announced the dementia tax as she would take their house.

    Police canvassed were not happy about cuts either true
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,138
    TOPPING said:

    *betting post*

    White vs Itauma

    Itauma is the great, er, white hope coming up from the amateurs (24-0-0, 12KO) while Whyte is the old war horse with a dodgy chin (or rather, a dodgy habit of getting sparked out via upper cut).

    And yes he is looking good since he turned professional (12-0-0, 10KO) However, if you look at Itauma's pro record there is nothing to see. Most of the people he has fought have been journeymen or people who have been minding their own business on a Thursday and been phoned up and asked to appear at York Hall on the Friday to fight Itauma.

    This is not to say that Itauma isn't super easy on the eye. He can bang and he is a boxer (cf AJ). But he hasn't faced anyone who can give him a proper run for his money and Whyte might just be that person. Although old(er), he is or can be a formidable opponent and I don't think Itauma will have faced anything like Whyte's resilience (as long as he avoids the upper cuts) or competence.

    Now, much of this is well known but on bf Itauma is 1.14 while Whyte is 9.2 with the draw at 32. Both the latter are worth a pound or two of anyone's money.

    Fisticuffs. The noble art. Saturday week, 16th August. You can get 17/2, a slightly better price, with Unibet or BetMGM.
    https://www.oddschecker.com/boxing/moses-itauma-v-dillian-whyte/winner
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,060

    @TSE "My view is that the bombings ultimately saved more lives than they killed"

    Including those that died from radiation long after the Japanese surrender?

    Unquestionably. At the end of the war Japan had way over a million men under arms. I am not completely convinced that taking Japan would have been possible, even for the American logistical giant that existed at the end of the war. Certainly the deaths that would have been incurred in the attempt would be multiples of the deaths from the bombs, including horrendous numbers of civilians.

    The only counterargument that I can see is that it opened the Pandora's box of nuclear weapon use. I agree with @TSE that we can only hope it is not ever dipped into again.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,738
    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    Fishing said:

    Cicero said:

    Fishing said:

    Barack Obama

    @BarackObama
    ·
    37m
    We can’t lose focus on what matters – right now, Republicans in Texas are trying to gerrymander district lines to unfairly win five seats in next year’s midterm elections. This is a power grab that undermines our democracy.

    https://x.com/BarackObama/status/1952841189310300581

    ... because the Democrats have never, ever tried to gerrymander of course. Oh no.

    Non-political districting is the only sensible way forward, but weirdly Democrats seem about as reluctant as Republicans to implement it.

    We can be extremely grateful that that kind of gerrymandering doesn't happen in this country (except for the LibDems and the Western Isles constituency of course, which they have since lost anyway).
    The boundary commission takes these decisions under strong scrutiny from all parties, so no idea what you are insinuating re: "Western Islands", which the Lib Dems have never held. Sounds like ignorant abuse rather than any informed comment.

    Uniquely, what you say about boundaries is not true in the case of the Western Isles - the Boundary Commission cannot amalgamate the boundaries of that constituency, unlike every other constituency in the country. Clegg insisted on including that in the 2011 Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act that as the Lib Dems had traditionally been popular there, and Cameron understandably agreed to get the Act through. It has 21k electors compared with more than three times that for the average UK constituency.

    In fact, of course, they did disastrously in the subsequent election, and have never recovered. So his gerrymandering didn't help his party.

    So I'm afraid the ignorant abuse comes from you.
    Here is a list of election results in Na h-Eileanan an Iar (the Western Isles).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na_h-Eileanan_an_Iar_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

    The last time the Liberals or Liberal Democrats secured over 8% of the vote in that seat was in 1966. The last time they won it was in 1929 (or 1931 if you count the National Liberals as Liberals).

    You still appear to be confusing it with Orkney and Shetland.
    Ynys Mon, Orkney and Shetland and the Isle of Wight were also excepted in Dave's drive for equal constituencies.
    More like Eileanan Siar was a cover for the true LD gerrymander targets of IoW and O&S?

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,478

    This subject always seems to ba approached from a Western/Allies -v- Japanese national perspective. I think that's rather too limited. The Japanese EMPIRE had a stranglehold on South East Asia and parts of China. It wasn't a particularly benevolent or benign hegemon: it was brutal, and the civilain populations from the fringes of India to the Malay peninsula to Manchuria were delivered from an appalling serfdom by the dropping of the bomb. Those lives matter too.

    It was also a bit odd to hear the BBC Radio 4 talks on the subject this morning, which portrayed Hiroshima as some sort of bucolic paradise (children going to school, grandparents tending gardens etc) whereas in fact the place was at the heart of the Japanese military-industrial complex. It was a shipbuilding centre, and the population was entirely devoted to the war effort, whether they were civilians or not.

    One of the many moral dilemmas in war is how responsible civilians are for their government and military. If you believe them responsible then it is legitimate to kill them. Much less so if they are also victims of their own government.

    Relevant to the bombing in WW2, but no less to the bombing and starving of Gaza.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,321
    edited August 6
    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    stodge said:

    Taz said:

    No easy options for Rachel Reeves.

    Taxes to be raised to cover £49 billion shortfall by end of parliament.

    We are really in a mess. Anaemic growth and a burgeoning debt and borrowing costs.

    Not all labours fault. Tory legacy was shit and the two NI cuts reckless but she’s played a bad hand poorly.


    https://x.com/salisburysuk/status/1952982735460679777?s=61

    There was a time when those of us concerned about Government borrowing were slapped down by Government supporters (now Opposition supporters) who asserted borrowing was fine and we could just keep doing it.

    £50 billion by 2028/9 isn't quite as bad as it sounds and it'll be easy for some to think that means £50 billion of tax rises now which it doesn't.

    Again, we come back to the questions which have afflicted us since 2008 - to reduce the deficit and reduce borrowing, what do we do? Do we raise taxes, do we cut spending? Do we do both? If we do the former, which taxes do we raise? If we do the latter, which areas of public spending do we cut and what will be the impact of both the tax rises and the spending cuts?

    Rather like the "boats", plenty of complaining and plenty pointing out the problem but little in the way of practical, workable and coherent solutions. I do think Starmer and Reeves were unwise in ruling out changes to Income Tax and VAT before the election - that was boxing themselves into a corner for no reason.
    You’re quite right. The Ming vase strategy was an error. They’re also unwise ruling out reform to The Triple Lock and the public sector pensions that are unfunded.
    The ghost of Theresa May's 2017 campaign would beg to differ.
    Depends what they care about: getting into power or what's best for the country.
    No point pledging what you think is best if those pledges lock you out of power.

    The much harder question is whether there is a package of policies that will both make a meaningful improvement to the state of the nation and be tolerated by enough of the electorate. It might be that those two circles on the Venn diagram no longer overlap at all.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 15,761
    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    Fishing said:

    Cicero said:

    Fishing said:

    Barack Obama

    @BarackObama
    ·
    37m
    We can’t lose focus on what matters – right now, Republicans in Texas are trying to gerrymander district lines to unfairly win five seats in next year’s midterm elections. This is a power grab that undermines our democracy.

    https://x.com/BarackObama/status/1952841189310300581

    ... because the Democrats have never, ever tried to gerrymander of course. Oh no.

    Non-political districting is the only sensible way forward, but weirdly Democrats seem about as reluctant as Republicans to implement it.

    We can be extremely grateful that that kind of gerrymandering doesn't happen in this country (except for the LibDems and the Western Isles constituency of course, which they have since lost anyway).
    The boundary commission takes these decisions under strong scrutiny from all parties, so no idea what you are insinuating re: "Western Islands", which the Lib Dems have never held. Sounds like ignorant abuse rather than any informed comment.

    Uniquely, what you say about boundaries is not true in the case of the Western Isles - the Boundary Commission cannot amalgamate the boundaries of that constituency, unlike every other constituency in the country. Clegg insisted on including that in the 2011 Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act that as the Lib Dems had traditionally been popular there, and Cameron understandably agreed to get the Act through. It has 21k electors compared with more than three times that for the average UK constituency.

    In fact, of course, they did disastrously in the subsequent election, and have never recovered. So his gerrymandering didn't help his party.

    So I'm afraid the ignorant abuse comes from you.
    Here is a list of election results in Na h-Eileanan an Iar (the Western Isles).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na_h-Eileanan_an_Iar_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

    The last time the Liberals or Liberal Democrats secured over 8% of the vote in that seat was in 1966. The last time they won it was in 1929 (or 1931 if you count the National Liberals as Liberals).

    You still appear to be confusing it with Orkney and Shetland.
    Ynys Mon, Orkney and Shetland and the Isle of Wight were also excepted in Dave's drive for equal constituencies.
    I'm wondering if actually it's the Isle of Wight (which is an ex-Lib Dem seat where their vote has collapsed) he's thinking of.

    But that was a thing the Conservatives wanted anyway and actually they were right to want it. The Isle of Wight, the Outer Hebrides and Orkney and Shetland are all rather special cases.

    Ynys Mon perhaps less so, but as it's one of the poorest and most neglected areas in the whole UK I'm not sorry it's got a dedicated MP.
    Ynys Mon is my choice for a new megacity. Ideal location and infrastructure potential with existing port and airport that can be expanded, road and rail links, and a pivot point between Ireland, Scotland, North Wales and North West England. Flat, largely unforested. Copious offshore wind potential nearby. Admittedly not a great climate.

    Give it a devolved city government, waive almost all planning regs, let it compete on corporate tax rate with Ireland, give it the same status as NI vis a vis the EU, link it up with NPR as well as HS2. We could do all that at the same time as those other big projects: the reclaimed doggerland metropolis in the North Sea, the ceding of the Isle of Portland to Spain, and replicating the Saudi city of “The Line” from Merthyr Tydfil to Castell Coch.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,308
    Taz said:

    stodge said:

    Taz said:

    No easy options for Rachel Reeves.

    Taxes to be raised to cover £49 billion shortfall by end of parliament.

    We are really in a mess. Anaemic growth and a burgeoning debt and borrowing costs.

    Not all labours fault. Tory legacy was shit and the two NI cuts reckless but she’s played a bad hand poorly.


    https://x.com/salisburysuk/status/1952982735460679777?s=61

    There was a time when those of us concerned about Government borrowing were slapped down by Government supporters (now Opposition supporters) who asserted borrowing was fine and we could just keep doing it.

    £50 billion by 2028/9 isn't quite as bad as it sounds and it'll be easy for some to think that means £50 billion of tax rises now which it doesn't.

    Again, we come back to the questions which have afflicted us since 2008 - to reduce the deficit and reduce borrowing, what do we do? Do we raise taxes, do we cut spending? Do we do both? If we do the former, which taxes do we raise? If we do the latter, which areas of public spending do we cut and what will be the impact of both the tax rises and the spending cuts?

    Rather like the "boats", plenty of complaining and plenty pointing out the problem but little in the way of practical, workable and coherent solutions. I do think Starmer and Reeves were unwise in ruling out changes to Income Tax and VAT before the election - that was boxing themselves into a corner for no reason.
    You’re quite right. The Ming vase strategy was an error. They’re also unwise ruling out reform to The Triple Lock and the public sector pensions that are unfunded.

    The should just bite the bullet, break a pledge or two, and raise income tax as well as looking at council tax bands/land tax for starters.

    But it’s a mammoth task and not an easy one especially given they fold to their backbenchers when trying to make modest changes to spending as we saw with welfare. A so called cut was simply slowing the rate of growth.
    Reeves is going to reduce tax breaks for private pension contributions but her experience with ending winter fuel allowance has stopped her going further on pensioner benefit cuts given she had to half reverse that
  • CookieCookie Posts: 15,747
    Good header @TSE - agree.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,416
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    stodge said:

    Taz said:

    No easy options for Rachel Reeves.

    Taxes to be raised to cover £49 billion shortfall by end of parliament.

    We are really in a mess. Anaemic growth and a burgeoning debt and borrowing costs.

    Not all labours fault. Tory legacy was shit and the two NI cuts reckless but she’s played a bad hand poorly.


    https://x.com/salisburysuk/status/1952982735460679777?s=61

    There was a time when those of us concerned about Government borrowing were slapped down by Government supporters (now Opposition supporters) who asserted borrowing was fine and we could just keep doing it.

    £50 billion by 2028/9 isn't quite as bad as it sounds and it'll be easy for some to think that means £50 billion of tax rises now which it doesn't.

    Again, we come back to the questions which have afflicted us since 2008 - to reduce the deficit and reduce borrowing, what do we do? Do we raise taxes, do we cut spending? Do we do both? If we do the former, which taxes do we raise? If we do the latter, which areas of public spending do we cut and what will be the impact of both the tax rises and the spending cuts?

    Rather like the "boats", plenty of complaining and plenty pointing out the problem but little in the way of practical, workable and coherent solutions. I do think Starmer and Reeves were unwise in ruling out changes to Income Tax and VAT before the election - that was boxing themselves into a corner for no reason.
    You’re quite right. The Ming vase strategy was an error. They’re also unwise ruling out reform to The Triple Lock and the public sector pensions that are unfunded.
    The ghost of Theresa May's 2017 campaign would beg to differ.
    Jezza 262 seats
    TMay 317 seats
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,138
    edited August 6
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    stodge said:

    Taz said:

    No easy options for Rachel Reeves.

    Taxes to be raised to cover £49 billion shortfall by end of parliament.

    We are really in a mess. Anaemic growth and a burgeoning debt and borrowing costs.

    Not all labours fault. Tory legacy was shit and the two NI cuts reckless but she’s played a bad hand poorly.


    https://x.com/salisburysuk/status/1952982735460679777?s=61

    There was a time when those of us concerned about Government borrowing were slapped down by Government supporters (now Opposition supporters) who asserted borrowing was fine and we could just keep doing it.

    £50 billion by 2028/9 isn't quite as bad as it sounds and it'll be easy for some to think that means £50 billion of tax rises now which it doesn't.

    Again, we come back to the questions which have afflicted us since 2008 - to reduce the deficit and reduce borrowing, what do we do? Do we raise taxes, do we cut spending? Do we do both? If we do the former, which taxes do we raise? If we do the latter, which areas of public spending do we cut and what will be the impact of both the tax rises and the spending cuts?

    Rather like the "boats", plenty of complaining and plenty pointing out the problem but little in the way of practical, workable and coherent solutions. I do think Starmer and Reeves were unwise in ruling out changes to Income Tax and VAT before the election - that was boxing themselves into a corner for no reason.
    You’re quite right. The Ming vase strategy was an error. They’re also unwise ruling out reform to The Triple Lock and the public sector pensions that are unfunded.
    The ghost of Theresa May's 2017 campaign would beg to differ.
    The problem with Theresa May's 2017 campaign was not social care but that Lynton Crosby had apparently not been told there was a new leader so crafted the campaign for David Cameron – confident in front of crowds and the camera, with no support from a sidelined Cabinet.

    What killed the Conservative majority in 2017 was the two terrorist outrages during the campaign itself, alongside insistence that Tory police cuts had made no difference. Suddenly Labour was the party of Law and Order.

    And parroting Crosby's slogan ‘strong and stable’ does not work when you are neither.
    It was social care, I canvassed Tory leaners in Ilford North who said they were now going Labour the week after May announced the dementia tax as she would take their house.

    Police canvassed were not happy about cuts either true
    It is not the police themselves but voters' reaction to Tory denial that cutting thousands of police made a difference to combating terrorism. It might even have been strictly defensible as a debating point but was politically tone deaf.

    Social care played a part, obviously. Everything played a part. But it was the public's visceral reaction to piles of dead children at the Ariana Grande concert a few days later that was decisive.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,197

    TOPPING said:

    *betting post*

    White vs Itauma

    Itauma is the great, er, white hope coming up from the amateurs (24-0-0, 12KO) while Whyte is the old war horse with a dodgy chin (or rather, a dodgy habit of getting sparked out via upper cut).

    And yes he is looking good since he turned professional (12-0-0, 10KO) However, if you look at Itauma's pro record there is nothing to see. Most of the people he has fought have been journeymen or people who have been minding their own business on a Thursday and been phoned up and asked to appear at York Hall on the Friday to fight Itauma.

    This is not to say that Itauma isn't super easy on the eye. He can bang and he is a boxer (cf AJ). But he hasn't faced anyone who can give him a proper run for his money and Whyte might just be that person. Although old(er), he is or can be a formidable opponent and I don't think Itauma will have faced anything like Whyte's resilience (as long as he avoids the upper cuts) or competence.

    Now, much of this is well known but on bf Itauma is 1.14 while Whyte is 9.2 with the draw at 32. Both the latter are worth a pound or two of anyone's money.

    Fisticuffs. The noble art. Saturday week, 16th August. You can get 17/2, a slightly better price, with Unibet or BetMGM.
    https://www.oddschecker.com/boxing/moses-itauma-v-dillian-whyte/winner
    Nice
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,448
    "RFK Jr cancels $500m in funding for mRNA vaccines that counter viruses like Covid"

    "The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) plans to cancel $500m (£376m) in funding for mRNA vaccines being developed to counter viruses like the flu and Covid-19.

    The move will impact 22 projects being led by major pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer and Moderna, for vaccines against bird flu and other viruses, HHS said."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74dzdddvmjo

    There's a possibility that RFK Jr's hands will be bloodier than Stalin's or Hitler's. All it will take is another pandemic. And perhaps not even that.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,738

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    Sorry - FPT on Lib Dem gerrymandering.

    Cicero said:

    Fishing said:

    Barack Obama

    @BarackObama
    ·
    37m
    We can’t lose focus on what matters – right now, Republicans in Texas are trying to gerrymander district lines to unfairly win five seats in next year’s midterm elections. This is a power grab that undermines our democracy.

    https://x.com/BarackObama/status/1952841189310300581

    ... because the Democrats have never, ever tried to gerrymander of course. Oh no.

    Non-political districting is the only sensible way forward, but weirdly Democrats seem about as reluctant as Republicans to implement it.

    We can be extremely grateful that that kind of gerrymandering doesn't happen in this country (except for the LibDems and the Western Isles constituency of course, which they have since lost anyway).
    The boundary commission takes these decisions under strong scrutiny from all parties, so no idea what you are insinuating re: "Western Islands", which the Lib Dems have never held. Sounds like ignorant abuse rather than any informed comment.

    Uniquely, what you say about boundaries is not true in the case of the Western Isles - the Boundary Commission cannot amalgamate the boundaries of that constituency, unlike every other constituency in the country. Clegg insisted on including that in the 2011 Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act that as the Lib Dems had traditionally been popular there, and Cameron understandably agreed to get the Act through. It has 21k electors compared with more than three times that for the average UK constituency.

    In fact, of course, they did disastrously in the subsequent election, and have never recovered. So his gerrymandering didn't help his party. And it should certainly be removed, like the other constitutional abortion that Lib Dem rigging, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, has been.

    So I'm afraid the ignorance comes from you.
    Is that the first time ever that a post has been comprehensively debunked on a thread before it's even been posted?
    In the unlikely event that Fishing ever gets beyond John O'Groats, I'd recommend if he wants to ingratiate himself with the locals to loudly declaim 'You're pretty much the same as the Western Isles aren't you' as he gets off the ferry.
    For added interest, ask when's the next Gaelic festival, and where can one get some gannets for dinner?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,179
    DavidL said:

    @TSE "My view is that the bombings ultimately saved more lives than they killed"

    Including those that died from radiation long after the Japanese surrender?

    Unquestionably. At the end of the war Japan had way over a million men under arms. I am not completely convinced that taking Japan would have been possible, even for the American logistical giant that existed at the end of the war. Certainly the deaths that would have been incurred in the attempt would be multiples of the deaths from the bombs, including horrendous numbers of civilians.

    The only counterargument that I can see is that it opened the Pandora's box of nuclear weapon use. I agree with @TSE that we can only hope it is not ever dipped into again.
    The logistics, and previous invasions of Japanese held territory show that the invasion*s* would have succeeded. Invasions because of the separation of the Japanese Home Islands.

    The question was the ratio of Allied casualties to Japanese. The estimate was that 35% of the allied forces landing would be casualties - over a quarter of a million. The Japanese would lose 5 times that number - at least.

    Japanese casualties would mostly be dead.

    Given the ideas for suicide charges by civilians, the slaughter would probably have been worse.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,193

    "RFK Jr cancels $500m in funding for mRNA vaccines that counter viruses like Covid"

    "The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) plans to cancel $500m (£376m) in funding for mRNA vaccines being developed to counter viruses like the flu and Covid-19.

    The move will impact 22 projects being led by major pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer and Moderna, for vaccines against bird flu and other viruses, HHS said."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74dzdddvmjo

    There's a possibility that RFK Jr's hands will be bloodier than Stalin's or Hitler's. All it will take is another pandemic. And perhaps not even that.

    Can the EU not step in here? Maybe cut a deal as someone orange always likes to do.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,138
    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    stodge said:

    Taz said:

    No easy options for Rachel Reeves.

    Taxes to be raised to cover £49 billion shortfall by end of parliament.

    We are really in a mess. Anaemic growth and a burgeoning debt and borrowing costs.

    Not all labours fault. Tory legacy was shit and the two NI cuts reckless but she’s played a bad hand poorly.


    https://x.com/salisburysuk/status/1952982735460679777?s=61

    There was a time when those of us concerned about Government borrowing were slapped down by Government supporters (now Opposition supporters) who asserted borrowing was fine and we could just keep doing it.

    £50 billion by 2028/9 isn't quite as bad as it sounds and it'll be easy for some to think that means £50 billion of tax rises now which it doesn't.

    Again, we come back to the questions which have afflicted us since 2008 - to reduce the deficit and reduce borrowing, what do we do? Do we raise taxes, do we cut spending? Do we do both? If we do the former, which taxes do we raise? If we do the latter, which areas of public spending do we cut and what will be the impact of both the tax rises and the spending cuts?

    Rather like the "boats", plenty of complaining and plenty pointing out the problem but little in the way of practical, workable and coherent solutions. I do think Starmer and Reeves were unwise in ruling out changes to Income Tax and VAT before the election - that was boxing themselves into a corner for no reason.
    You’re quite right. The Ming vase strategy was an error. They’re also unwise ruling out reform to The Triple Lock and the public sector pensions that are unfunded.
    The ghost of Theresa May's 2017 campaign would beg to differ.
    Depends what they care about: getting into power or what's best for the country.
    A false dichotomy. Any party, any politician believes that them achieving power *is* what is best for the country.

    What Labour should have learned from Blair and New Labour is that you should put the divisive stuff in the manifesto because that would have bound MPs to measures like cutting the WFA rather than blindsiding them and causing a rebellion.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,193

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    stodge said:

    Taz said:

    No easy options for Rachel Reeves.

    Taxes to be raised to cover £49 billion shortfall by end of parliament.

    We are really in a mess. Anaemic growth and a burgeoning debt and borrowing costs.

    Not all labours fault. Tory legacy was shit and the two NI cuts reckless but she’s played a bad hand poorly.


    https://x.com/salisburysuk/status/1952982735460679777?s=61

    There was a time when those of us concerned about Government borrowing were slapped down by Government supporters (now Opposition supporters) who asserted borrowing was fine and we could just keep doing it.

    £50 billion by 2028/9 isn't quite as bad as it sounds and it'll be easy for some to think that means £50 billion of tax rises now which it doesn't.

    Again, we come back to the questions which have afflicted us since 2008 - to reduce the deficit and reduce borrowing, what do we do? Do we raise taxes, do we cut spending? Do we do both? If we do the former, which taxes do we raise? If we do the latter, which areas of public spending do we cut and what will be the impact of both the tax rises and the spending cuts?

    Rather like the "boats", plenty of complaining and plenty pointing out the problem but little in the way of practical, workable and coherent solutions. I do think Starmer and Reeves were unwise in ruling out changes to Income Tax and VAT before the election - that was boxing themselves into a corner for no reason.
    You’re quite right. The Ming vase strategy was an error. They’re also unwise ruling out reform to The Triple Lock and the public sector pensions that are unfunded.
    The ghost of Theresa May's 2017 campaign would beg to differ.
    The problem with Theresa May's 2017 campaign was not social care but that Lynton Crosby had apparently not been told there was a new leader so crafted the campaign for David Cameron – confident in front of crowds and the camera, with no support from a sidelined Cabinet.

    What killed the Conservative majority in 2017 was the two terrorist outrages during the campaign itself, alongside insistence that Tory police cuts had made no difference. Suddenly Labour was the party of Law and Order.

    And parroting Crosby's slogan ‘strong and stable’ does not work when you are neither.
    It was social care, I canvassed Tory leaners in Ilford North who said they were now going Labour the week after May announced the dementia tax as she would take their house.

    Police canvassed were not happy about cuts either true
    It is not the police themselves but voters' reaction to Tory denial that cutting thousands of police made a difference to combating terrorism. It might even have been strictly defensible as a debating point but was politically tone deaf.

    Social care played a part, obviously. Everything played a part. But it was the public's visceral reaction to piles of dead children at the Ariana Grande concert a few days later that was decisive.

    My memory was that it less the dementia tax itself but the u-turn mess in particular the "nothing has changed" whine that was greeted with universal derision.

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,138

    "RFK Jr cancels $500m in funding for mRNA vaccines that counter viruses like Covid"

    "The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) plans to cancel $500m (£376m) in funding for mRNA vaccines being developed to counter viruses like the flu and Covid-19.

    The move will impact 22 projects being led by major pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer and Moderna, for vaccines against bird flu and other viruses, HHS said."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74dzdddvmjo

    There's a possibility that RFK Jr's hands will be bloodier than Stalin's or Hitler's. All it will take is another pandemic. And perhaps not even that.

    Can the EU not step in here? Maybe cut a deal as someone orange always likes to do.
    Didn't Boris cut off Imperial's work on mRNA vaccines during the pandemic, in favour of Oxford's classical approach?
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,736

    "RFK Jr cancels $500m in funding for mRNA vaccines that counter viruses like Covid"

    "The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) plans to cancel $500m (£376m) in funding for mRNA vaccines being developed to counter viruses like the flu and Covid-19.

    The move will impact 22 projects being led by major pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer and Moderna, for vaccines against bird flu and other viruses, HHS said."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74dzdddvmjo

    There's a possibility that RFK Jr's hands will be bloodier than Stalin's or Hitler's. All it will take is another pandemic. And perhaps not even that.

    Can the EU not step in here? Maybe cut a deal as someone orange always likes to do.
    The UK should be shovelling money at research Universities here , we have a number of the top ten global as it is, to set up Jobs to get these companies to relocate their research on these vaccines.

    Not only is it a massive public good in creating vaccines, protecting the future public, attracting scientists, attracting jobs but it could also see windfalls such as the Covid vaccines did for those companies, the potential spin offs - we’ve seen the money that the fat jabs have generated and who knows what else will come from these vaccine research teams.

    There could be few better uses of taxpayer money at the moment, could have used Chagos money of course but happily those millions are helping Mauritians escape the terror of income tax.
Sign In or Register to comment.