I hope there are psychological tests for whichever officer has his finger on the button, I am sure there are some fail safe mechanisms, but the commander of a nuclear submarine can arguably claim to be one of the most powerful people on the planet
I think you need more than one person to act simultaneously. At least, that's how Hollywood does it so it must be that way.
Who is the other person needed then?
The rest of the crew, with the second in command. I suspect if a commander were to go loco and attempt to order an authorised release, he'd be visiting the sick bay for 'a rest'.
Peter Hennessy is probably one of the most authoritative writers on this subject. It's worth reading what he's published, and broadcast.
One would hope so, unless the commander and second in command are both insane
In the Crabs (RAF) such a thing might be possible as most of the flying types are bonkers to start with. To a lesser extent it could happen in the army, which, God knows, has alway had more than its fair share of eccentrics. In the RN, never - drafting policy allows only the commanding officer or his first lieutenant to be round the twist but not both and neither in HM Submarines.
When you spend most of the year hundreds or thousands of feet under the sea level in a glorified tin can witha missile which could obliterate a major city who knows what could happen? They are highly trained of course and have breaks between tours but it is still a huge responsibility
As a matter of interest is there any publicly available info on how deep Vanguard-class subs can dive?
If Liz had been her normal relaxed and charming self, then she would have fared much better. She never really developed in the campaign after the opening weekend.
She would have perhaps divided the party in a different way, but would have put Labour in a far more effective place in 2020.
Mind you that wouldn't be tough. Having the Chuckle Brothers as party leader would be more effective than Corbyn!
What's been quit clear from the AV rounds I've seen over the last year (and is very good for the SNP winning almost every council) is that the core Labour transfers are from the Tories but the Tories will be winning seats so their transfer value (if any) will be a tiny fraction.
Meanwhile the Liberals (who will win virtually nothing) are an even split, therefore not hurting the SNP while the Greens (who again will win virtually nothing) are transferring to the SNP (at full value) on better than a 2 for 1 split.
Slightly premature to write off the dreaded kippers. There is that referendum thingy.
I thought it quite a remarkable leap from considering a few hundred people turning out for a council by-election to a writing off a party that gained how many million votes at the last GE (and who rather well at the last Euro elections). The wish is sometimes father to the thought, or in this case the blog post. The good Dr. Sox might also care to reflect on the last time he made a pronouncement of UKIP's chances in my presence (it was a very nice bottle and I enjoyed it immensely).
I hope you saved a drop to toast our Scottish bretheren on Monday. Such a parcel of rogues in a nation..
But UKIP do seem to flop in local government as well as Westminster elections. They have a pretty poor record in defending seats at any level.
Interestingly, the US President is the Commander-in-Chief and can order the use of nukes, but the UK PM is not the C-in-C and can only authorise their use: the order must be given by military personnel, and PM cannot force them to do so
I'm a bit confused there. The Queen is our C-in-C so one would expect that the Prime Minister would exercise that power on her behalf, but no?
I guess I am hopelessly ignorant of this aspect of our constitution.
I'm a bit confused too. The Crown is a military position (the military position, you might say), but I think the PM isn't a military position, he's a civilian. He directs the military personnel, not orders them: a fine distinction, but an important one.
If Liz had been her normal relaxed and charming self, then she would have fared much better. She never really developed in the campaign after the opening weekend.
She would have perhaps divided the party in a different way, but would have put Labour in a far more effective place in 2020.
Mind you that wouldn't be tough. Having the Chuckle Brothers as party leader would be more effective than Corbyn!
My main problem with her wasn't/isn't even that she's a "Blairite" - it's that she seems so mind-numbingly dim. Everything she says seems to be a platitude.
As a matter of interest is there any publicly available info on how deep Vanguard-class subs can dive?
Not a chance, Mr Wanderer. That is to say you can probably find information on the subject but none of it will be authoritative, or even accurate. When it wants to HMG can still keep some secrets. The actual performance of the Vanguard class is a very closely guarded secret
Interestingly, the US President is the Commander-in-Chief and can order the use of nukes, but the UK PM is not the C-in-C and can only authorise their use: the order must be given by military personnel, and PM cannot force them to do so
I'm a bit confused there. The Queen is our C-in-C so one would expect that the Prime Minister would exercise that power on her behalf, but no?
I guess I am hopelessly ignorant of this aspect of our constitution.
I think you are right to be confused. The analogy you are replying to is pants. Did George VI order war in 1939? Did Neville Chamberlain only authorise it? Parliament did not vote for it that's for sure.
Interestingly, the US President is the Commander-in-Chief and can order the use of nukes, but the UK PM is not the C-in-C and can only authorise their use: the order must be given by military personnel, and PM cannot force them to do so
I'm a bit confused there. The Queen is our C-in-C so one would expect that the Prime Minister would exercise that power on her behalf, but no?
I guess I am hopelessly ignorant of this aspect of our constitution.
I'm a bit confused too. The Crown is a military position (the military position, you might say), but I think the PM isn't a military position, he's a civilian. He directs the military personnel, not orders them: a fine distinction, but an important one.
George II the last British Monarch wot led our troops into battle.
If Liz had been her normal relaxed and charming self, then she would have fared much better. She never really developed in the campaign after the opening weekend.
She would have perhaps divided the party in a different way, but would have put Labour in a far more effective place in 2020.
Mind you that wouldn't be tough. Having the Chuckle Brothers as party leader would be more effective than Corbyn!
My main problem with her wasn't/isn't even that she's a "Blairite" - it's that she seems so mind-numbingly dim. Everything she says seems to be a platitude.
She was rather stiff in the campaign. She is much better in a format like This Week.
She went from a comp to Cambridge. She is not dim.
Interestingly, the US President is the Commander-in-Chief and can order the use of nukes, but the UK PM is not the C-in-C and can only authorise their use: the order must be given by military personnel, and PM cannot force them to do so
I'm a bit confused there. The Queen is our C-in-C so one would expect that the Prime Minister would exercise that power on her behalf, but no?
I guess I am hopelessly ignorant of this aspect of our constitution.
I'm a bit confused too. The Crown is a military position (the military position, you might say), but I think the PM isn't a military position, he's a civilian. He directs the military personnel, not orders them: a fine distinction, but an important one.
I suppose it makes sense if you think about conventional forces. Lloyd George could have said, "No Field Marshall, you can't launch another offensive in the Ypres sector" but he couldn't have said "Attack at dawn."
Slightly premature to write off the dreaded kippers. There is that referendum thingy.
I thought it quite a remarkable leap from considering a few hundred people turning out for a council by-election to a writing off a party that gained how many million votes at the last GE (and who rather well at the last Euro elections). The wish is sometimes father to the thought, or in this case the blog post. The good Dr. Sox might also care to reflect on the last time he made a pronouncement of UKIP's chances in my presence (it was a very nice bottle and I enjoyed it immensely).
I hope you saved a drop to toast our Scottish bretheren on Monday. Such a parcel of rogues in a nation..
But UKIP do seem to flop in local government as well as Westminster elections. They have a pretty poor record in defending seats at any level.
You are quite right, Doc, they do have a poor record at defending seats at any level (save the Euros but will have to wait on that one). As a party they have not got their act into gear, and I am not going to speculate why. Perhaps in time they might or perhaps they will just fade away. However, if it is the latter something or someone needs to be there to pick up the slack, there are a lot of people who are not being represented at the moment by the "main"parties and that is not healthy..
Interestingly, the US President is the Commander-in-Chief and can order the use of nukes, but the UK PM is not the C-in-C and can only authorise their use: the order must be given by military personnel, and PM cannot force them to do so
I'm a bit confused there. The Queen is our C-in-C so one would expect that the Prime Minister would exercise that power on her behalf, but no?
I guess I am hopelessly ignorant of this aspect of our constitution.
I think you are right to be confused. The analogy you are replying to is pants. Did George VI order war in 1939? Did Neville Chamberlain only authorise it? Parliament did not vote for it that's for sure.
If Liz had been her normal relaxed and charming self, then she would have fared much better. She never really developed in the campaign after the opening weekend.
She would have perhaps divided the party in a different way, but would have put Labour in a far more effective place in 2020.
Mind you that wouldn't be tough. Having the Chuckle Brothers as party leader would be more effective than Corbyn!
My main problem with her wasn't/isn't even that she's a "Blairite" - it's that she seems so mind-numbingly dim. Everything she says seems to be a platitude.
She was rather stiff in the campaign. She is much better in a format like This Week.
She went from a comp to Cambridge. She is not dim.
Well, being academically good is not necessarily the same thing as being an insightful thinker.
That discussion on the economy was a case in point. She said "the problem was Labour wasn't trusted on the economy and leadership", as if this is some revelation that only she has thought of. Well, everyone (even the most diehard Corbynista) agrees Labour weren't trusted on the economy or on leadership; simply making that statement of the bleeding obvious doesn't get us anywhere, unless she's also going to advance a theory about WHY it was the case they weren't trusted, and HOW it could be remedied.
As a matter of interest is there any publicly available info on how deep Vanguard-class subs can dive?
Not a chance, Mr Wanderer. That is to say you can probably find information on the subject but none of it will be authoritative, or even accurate. When it wants to HMG can still keep some secrets. The actual performance of the Vanguard class is a very closely guarded secret
That's what I'd expect. I'm just intrigued. The whole package is a quite incredible piece of technology.
I imagine that being commander of a ballistic nuclear submarine (of which there are a great many of various nationalities ... and there have been many many more over the years) is paralysingly boring- except in periods of what is euphemistically described as 'international tension'
...
Then Mr. Path you might want to extend your imagination.
Running a business which employs a hundred or so people is never boring. Then imagine running a business in which has those 100 people crammed into a steel tube for about six week sat a time with no fresh air and no daylight. Then take that business and put a nuclear reactor in the middle of it. Then add on the fact that you must not, ever, be found by any other submarine or ship or aeroplane that are out there looking for you and if you are found, just once, that is your career over (not to mention very significant costs to the UK), oh and in not being found you have to play a 3D mind game based on limited information. And all that is in periods without any "international tension".
You seriously think that a job like that is "paralysingly boring". God knows what you do for a living if you do.
Get a life when it comes to making analogies, and look at what the response was to . How about flying a Typhoon over Syria. Or running the SAS op that targets them. A nuclear balistic missile armed submarine captain will I hope never have to earn his salary
The captain of a Vanguard boat earns his salary every day as I demonstrated when I described his job. If you think that job is "paralysingly boring" then tell us what you do for a living.
A captain of a royal navy vessel does a professional job. I repeat, get a life when it comes to making analogies. Take a look at the remark about nukes being secured by bycycle locks etc. For him and his crew it will be routine after routine and long may it remain so.
Slightly premature to write off the dreaded kippers. There is that referendum thingy.
I thought it quite a remarkable leap from considering a few hundred people turning out for a council by-election to a writing off a party that gained how many million votes at the last GE (and who rather well at the last Euro elections). The wish is sometimes father to the thought, or in this case the blog post. The good Dr. Sox might also care to reflect on the last time he made a pronouncement of UKIP's chances in my presence (it was a very nice bottle and I enjoyed it immensely).
I hope you saved a drop to toast our Scottish bretheren on Monday. Such a parcel of rogues in a nation..
But UKIP do seem to flop in local government as well as Westminster elections. They have a pretty poor record in defending seats at any level.
You are quite right, Doc, they do have a poor record at defending seats at any level (save the Euros but will have to wait on that one). As a party they have not got their act into gear, and I am not going to speculate why. Perhaps in time they might or perhaps they will just fade away. However, if it is the latter something or someone needs to be there to pick up the slack, there are a lot of people who are not being represented at the moment by the "main"parties and that is not healthy..
Centrist Social Democrats are also very poorly served by our political parties too.
I think that you exaggerate the success of UKIP at retaining MEPs. This was a list vote and the party deselected quite a few for various offenses against the Great Leader. Indeed on deselection, UKIPs Faragistas makes Momentum look like amateurs.
I hope there are psychological tests for whichever officer has his finger on the button, I am sure there are some fail safe mechanisms, but the commander of a nuclear submarine can arguably claim to be one of the most powerful people on the planet
I think you need more than one person to act simultaneously. At least, that's how Hollywood does it so it must be that way.
Who is the other person needed then?
The rest of the crew, with the second in command. I suspect if a commander were to go loco and attempt to order an authorised release, he'd be visiting the sick bay for 'a rest'.
Peter Hennessy is probably one of the most authoritative writers on this subject. It's worth reading what he's published, and broadcast.
One would hope so, unless the commander and second in command are both insane
In the Crabs (RAF) such a thing might be possible as most of the flying types are bonkers to start with. To a lesser extent it could happen in the army, which, God knows, has alway had more than its fair share of eccentrics. In the RN, never - drafting policy allows only the commanding officer or his first lieutenant to be round the twist but not both and neither in HM Submarines.
When you spend most of the year hundreds or thousands of feet under the sea level in a glorified tin can witha missile which could obliterate a major city who knows what could happen? They are highly trained of course and have breaks between tours but it is still a huge responsibility
As a matter of interest is there any publicly available info on how deep Vanguard-class subs can dive?
I hope there are psychological tests for whichever officer has his finger on the button, I am sure there are some fail safe mechanisms, but the commander of a nuclear submarine can arguably claim to be one of the most powerful people on the planet
I think you need more than one person to act simultaneously. At least, that's how Hollywood does it so it must be that way.
Who is the other person needed then?
The rest of the crew, with the second in command. I suspect if a commander were to go loco and attempt to order an authorised release, he'd be visiting the sick bay for 'a rest'.
Peter Hennessy is probably one of the most authoritative writers on this subject. It's worth reading what he's published, and broadcast.
One would hope so, unless the commander and second in command are both insane
In the Crabs (RAF) such a thing might be possible as most of the flying types are bonkers to start with. To a lesser extent it could happen in the army, which, God knows, has alway had more than its fair share of eccentrics. In the RN, never - drafting policy allows only the commanding officer or his first lieutenant to be round the twist but not both and neither in HM Submarines.
When you spend most of the year hundreds or thousands of feet under the sea level in a glorified tin can witha missile which could obliterate a major city who knows what could happen? They are highly trained of course and have breaks between tours but it is still a huge responsibility
As a matter of interest is there any publicly available info on how deep Vanguard-class subs can dive?
If Liz had been her normal relaxed and charming self, then she would have fared much better. She never really developed in the campaign after the opening weekend.
She would have perhaps divided the party in a different way, but would have put Labour in a far more effective place in 2020.
Mind you that wouldn't be tough. Having the Chuckle Brothers as party leader would be more effective than Corbyn!
My main problem with her wasn't/isn't even that she's a "Blairite" - it's that she seems so mind-numbingly dim. Everything she says seems to be a platitude.
She was rather stiff in the campaign. She is much better in a format like This Week.
She went from a comp to Cambridge. She is not dim.
Well, being academically good is not necessarily the same thing as being an insightful thinker.
That discussion on the economy was a case in point. She said "the problem was Labour wasn't trusted on the economy and leadership", as if this is some revelation that only she has thought of. Well, everyone (even the most diehard Corbynista) agrees Labour weren't trusted on the economy or on leadership; simply making that statement of the bleeding obvious doesn't get us anywhere, unless she's also going to advance a theory about WHY it was the case they weren't trusted, and HOW it could be remedied.
She expounded some things in the campaign that the vast majority of Labour selectorate did not want to hear. Deficit reduction, need to balance the budget, that it would be dangerous to promise reversal of all welfare reforms etc. Liz was pretty open with what she meant. Her audience didn't like it, but the truth often hurts.
I hope there are psychological tests for whichever officer has his finger on the button, I am sure there are some fail safe mechanisms, but the commander of a nuclear submarine can arguably claim to be one of the most powerful people on the planet
I think you need more than one person to act simultaneously. At least, that's how Hollywood does it so it must be that way.
Who is the other person needed then?
The rest of the crew, with the second in command. I suspect if a commander were to go loco and attempt to order an authorised release, he'd be visiting the sick bay for 'a rest'.
Peter Hennessy is probably one of the most authoritative writers on this subject. It's worth reading what he's published, and broadcast.
One would hope so, unless the commander and second in command are both insane
In the Crabs (RAF) such a thing might be possible as most of the flying types are bonkers to start with. To a lesser extent it could happen in the army, which, God knows, has alway had more than its fair share of eccentrics. In the RN, never - drafting policy allows only the commanding officer or his first lieutenant to be round the twist but not both and neither in HM Submarines.
When you spend most of the year hundreds or thousands of feet under the sea level in a glorified tin can witha missile which could obliterate a major city who knows what could happen? They are highly trained of course and have breaks between tours but it is still a huge responsibility
As a matter of interest is there any publicly available info on how deep Vanguard-class subs can dive?
Blimey, eye opening stuff from Yasmin ALibhai Brown.
???
Said that alot of mosques are infested with wahabi literature from Saudi Arabia.
Maajid Nawaz says the same in his book. Essentially that Wahhabism is mainstream here.
Some people might point out this is bears/woods stuff. But most of us don't head into those woods, and this is coming from the horse's mouth so to speak.
Interestingly, the US President is the Commander-in-Chief and can order the use of nukes, but the UK PM is not the C-in-C and can only authorise their use: the order must be given by military personnel, and PM cannot force them to do so
I'm a bit confused there. The Queen is our C-in-C so one would expect that the Prime Minister would exercise that power on her behalf, but no?
I guess I am hopelessly ignorant of this aspect of our constitution.
I'm a bit confused too. The Crown is a military position (the military position, you might say), but I think the PM isn't a military position, he's a civilian. He directs the military personnel, not orders them: a fine distinction, but an important one.
I suppose it makes sense if you think about conventional forces. Lloyd George could have said, "No Field Marshall, you can't launch another offensive in the Ypres sector" but he couldn't have said "Attack at dawn."
Actually if you read up on the political aspects of WWI you might come to the conclusion that the PM could not have denied permission for another offensive. He could of replaced the army's commander, which he chose not to do despite not agreeing with him, or he could have chosen to re-write the grand strategy document which set the army commanders terms of reference (the job he wanted him to do), which he also deiced not to do.
You might also find that what the PM did do is starve the army commander of the resources he needed to do the job the PM had given him. (Gordon Brown learned something from his history lessons.)
For a slightly less politically charged example. In 1942 Churchill wanted Auchinleck to attack in North Africa before the latter was ready Auchinleck said that an attack before October was doomed to strategic failure though it might achieve short term tactical success and therefore he would not order it. Churchill sacked Auchinleck (as was his right) and appointed Montgomery in his stead. Montgomery attacked on 23 October (using, mostly the Awk's plan).
I imagine that being commander of a ballistic nuclear submarine (of which there are a great many of various nationalities ... and there have been many many more over the years) is paralysingly boring- except in periods of what is euphemistically described as 'international tension'
...
Then Mr. Path you might want to extend your imagination.
Running a business which employs a hundred or so people is never boring. Then imagine running a business in which has those 100 people crammed into a steel tube for about six week sat a time with no fresh air and no daylight. Then take that business and put a nuclear reactor in the middle of it. Then add on the fact that you must not, ever, be found by any other submarine or ship or aeroplane that are out there looking for you and if you are found, just once, that is your career over (not to mention very significant costs to the UK), oh and in not being found you have to play a 3D mind game based on limited information. And all that is in periods without any "international tension".
You seriously think that a job like that is "paralysingly boring". God knows what you do for a living if you do.
Get a life when it comes to making analogies, and look at what the response was to . How about flying a Typhoon over Syria. Or running the SAS op that targets them. A nuclear balistic missile armed submarine captain will I hope never have to earn his salary
The captain of a Vanguard boat earns his salary every day as I demonstrated when I described his job. If you think that job is "paralysingly boring" then tell us what you do for a living.
A captain of a royal navy vessel does a professional job. I repeat, get a life when it comes to making analogies. Take a look at the remark about nukes being secured by bycycle locks etc. For him and his crew it will be routine after routine and long may it remain so.
I didn't make any analogies, Mr. Path, I just pointed out what the job of a captain of a Trident boat actually consisted of - that job that you said must be "paralysingly boring". Now either you were talking off the top of your head or you have some stupendous job yourself, a job so stupendous that that captain's job pales into boring insignificance by comparison. Which is it, I wonder.
Actually if you read up on the political aspects of WWI you might come to the conclusion that the PM could not have denied permission for another offensive. He could of replaced the army's commander, which he chose not to do despite not agreeing with him, or he could have chosen to re-write the grand strategy document which set the army commanders terms of reference (the job he wanted him to do), which he also deiced not to do.
You might also find that what the PM did do is starve the army commander of the resources he needed to do the job the PM had given him. (Gordon Brown learned something from his history lessons.)
For a slightly less politically charged example. In 1942 Churchill wanted Auchinleck to attack in North Africa before the latter was ready Auchinleck said that an attack before October was doomed to strategic failure though it might achieve short term tactical success and therefore he would not order it. Churchill sacked Auchinleck (as was his right) and appointed Montgomery in his stead. Montgomery attacked on 23 October (using, mostly the Awk's plan).
I am aware of the inquities of Lloyd George. But now that I think a bit more you are exactly right, aren't you? Lloyd George couldn't dictate to Haig, only dismiss him, which he wouldn't do.
Then again he could subordinate him to Nivelle. And speaking of that, iirc it was Haig personally and not the British Government who proposed that Foch should have his general-in-chief role in April 1918. Complicated.
I imagine that being commander of a ballistic nuclear submarine (of which there are a great many of various nationalities ... and there have been many many more over the years) is paralysingly boring- except in periods of what is euphemistically described as 'international tension'
...
Then Mr. Path you might want to extend your imagination.
Running a business which employs a hundred or so people is never boring. Then imagine running a business in which has those 100 people crammed into a steel tube for about six week sat a time with no fresh air and no daylight. Then take that business and put a nuclear reactor
You seriously think that a job like that is "paralysingly boring". God knows what you do for a living if you do.
Get a life when it comes to making analogies, and look at what the response was to . How about flying a Typhoon over Syria. Or running the SAS op that targets them. A nuclear balistic missile armed submarine captain will I hope never have to earn his salary
The captain of a Vanguard boat earns his salary every day as I demonstrated when I described his job. If you think that job is "paralysingly boring" then tell us what you do for a living.
A captain of a royal navy vessel does a professional job. I repeat, get a life when it comes to making analogies. Take a look at the remark about nukes being secured by bycycle locks etc. For him and his crew it will be routine after routine and long may it remain so.
I didn't make any analogies, Mr. Path, I just pointed out what the job of a captain of a Trident boat actually consisted of - that job that you said must be "paralysingly boring". Now either you were talking off the top of your head or you have some stupendous job yourself, a job so stupendous that that captain's job pales into boring insignificance by comparison. Which is it, I wonder.
Given he mocked and dismissed me for raising the bike lock story, even though I made clear I raised it as I thought it was funny and that is reason enough, and not responded to the fact the story comes in fact from the BBC, making his sneering dismissal less reasonable, I think he was talking off the top of his head and is incapable of admitting it.
I don't even understand what 'get a life when it comes to making analogies' is supposed to mean. People aren't permitted (by him, presumably) to make analogies or humorous remarks. Quite quite close minded and dim.
Osborne is a meddler. He's happy to cut corporation tax, but burdens firms with an 'apprenticeship levy' (punishing firms with large workforces) and the banks with an extra tax on profits.
If London loses HSBC it will be his doing.
If the banks had not been bailed out by taxpayers most if them would have no profits and more apprentices is an excellent idea. HSBC is not going to leave anyway, Geneva is too dull, New York too tough on white collar crime and Hong Kong too much in the Shadow of the Chinese government
HSBC did not take a penny of government money. I sincerely hope you are right, but I'm sure the HK authorities will make them a very tempting offer.
I'm all for more apprenticeships, but I get the feeling that quality has been sacrificed for quantity. That said firms like JLR and Rolls Royce do a great job.
HSBC benefitted from the complete elimination of counter party risk as various dodgy firms it made deals with were propped up.
The billions the US government funnelled into AIG all flowed immediately put again for O banks that 'did not take a penny'.
Edit: double checked and indeed HSBC got billions of AIG CDS money. Money that wouldn't have existed if not for a government bailout.
Comments
She would have perhaps divided the party in a different way, but would have put Labour in a far more effective place in 2020.
Mind you that wouldn't be tough. Having the Chuckle Brothers as party leader would be more effective than Corbyn!
Meanwhile the Liberals (who will win virtually nothing) are an even split, therefore not hurting the SNP while the Greens (who again will win virtually nothing) are transferring to the SNP (at full value) on better than a 2 for 1 split.
But UKIP do seem to flop in local government as well as Westminster elections. They have a pretty poor record in defending seats at any level.
She went from a comp to Cambridge. She is not dim.
Or AV as it is also known.
That discussion on the economy was a case in point. She said "the problem was Labour wasn't trusted on the economy and leadership", as if this is some revelation that only she has thought of. Well, everyone (even the most diehard Corbynista) agrees Labour weren't trusted on the economy or on leadership; simply making that statement of the bleeding obvious doesn't get us anywhere, unless she's also going to advance a theory about WHY it was the case they weren't trusted, and HOW it could be remedied.
I repeat, get a life when it comes to making analogies. Take a look at the remark about nukes being secured by bycycle locks etc.
For him and his crew it will be routine after routine and long may it remain so.
I think that you exaggerate the success of UKIP at retaining MEPs. This was a list vote and the party deselected quite a few for various offenses against the Great Leader. Indeed on deselection, UKIPs Faragistas makes Momentum look like amateurs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine#Submersion_and_trimming
Its hardly a secret - all that Saudi money for 'cultural' and 'educational' purposes is for a reason.
You might also find that what the PM did do is starve the army commander of the resources he needed to do the job the PM had given him. (Gordon Brown learned something from his history lessons.)
For a slightly less politically charged example. In 1942 Churchill wanted Auchinleck to attack in North Africa before the latter was ready Auchinleck said that an attack before October was doomed to strategic failure though it might achieve short term tactical success and therefore he would not order it. Churchill sacked Auchinleck (as was his right) and appointed Montgomery in his stead. Montgomery attacked on 23 October (using, mostly the Awk's plan).
I don't even understand what 'get a life when it comes to making analogies' is supposed to mean. People aren't permitted (by him, presumably) to make analogies or humorous remarks. Quite quite close minded and dim.
The billions the US government funnelled into AIG all flowed immediately put again for O banks that 'did not take a penny'.
Edit: double checked and indeed HSBC got billions of AIG CDS money. Money that wouldn't have existed if not for a government bailout.