The reason I don't want to talk about Brexit any more, and find it a yawn, is not because I have lost faith in it, but because I have - as I have now proved - been campaigning for it and journalising for it for 20 solid years. Ever since PB began (and before) as old timers here will know.
Therefore to me many of the arguments are unbelievably stupid or dull or repetitive. I've rehashed them in my mind and in articles trillions of times.
Of course to others they are new and fresh. You've never had to think about this stuff before. But I have done the thinking many times.
I just want Brexit. I don't really care if it is soft hard clean clumsy silly or stupendous. Just Brexit. Let the geeks work out the details. I appreciate others will find the minutiae fascinating.
It is boring and we're all repeating ourselves. The reason I essentially KNOW Brexit will be a huge mess is that there is no plan for Brexit, there never has been and never will be. Leavers have never articulated a coherent direction for Brexit, let alone a realistic worked out plan. Some preposterously blame David Cameron for not doing their thinking for them. Finally because no-one, Leaver as well as Remainer, is willing to take ownership of the project.
The plan for Brexit is clear, gain control of UK borders and get some sort of trade deal with the EU. How far that us achievable is another matter and will be the focus of the negotiations
We are Germany's 3rd biggest market - they don't want to not have a trade deal.
Of some form maybe but full single market access us unlikely
With companies shifting investment from Mexico to the USA, isn't Mexico already paying for the wall?
And it would be easy to add say a $20 entry permit fee for anyone crossing the land border northbound. That would raise the cost of the wall in a decade or so.
Trump, as I have said plenty before, is in the Kremlin's pocket.
Is it just money, how a guy who's businesses were $900million down suddenly had money to burn?
Is it that they have compromising information about his leisure activities whilst he was Russia many years ago?
The US has a President who is more interested in keeping his interests with a foreign and hostile state above his own country.
-US intelligence has intercepts of senior Kremlin types expressing their particular views of Trump and his particular position with them. This is not just the Russians congratulating themselves as reported in the Washington Post.
-A 3rd party, ostensibly friendly, intelligence agency was so keen to get what they believed was the compromising Russian material on Trump that they went straight for bribery by letting it be known via whatever channels they had in Russia that they'd be willing to pay a large amount of cash. This was before the election.
Trump is in way over his head, the question is whether the spooks can muster themselves to bring him down. This is a tricky stance to take.
Cuckoo Cuckoo, come in Tapestry your time under cover is up.
Trump is also a billionaire but spent less than Clinton
Britain has the world's top economy after Brexit -- can a Times reader or subscriber briefly outline in what sense or by what measure that might be true (and why it seems to be in the present tense)?
Highest GDP growth for one quarter?
No, for 2016 as a whole. There is also a lot of scepticism about the supposed downturn this year. The Bank and OBR are going to have egg on their faces in a few months when the forecasts are revised up to 2% hich is barely any different to this year or the UK's trend growth rate.
Morning all. If we remember the much-maligned IFS pre-EUref report, their conclusion favoured NIESR's model, which forecast a 0.2% reduction in trend growth to 2030 (though obviously that would not be linear).
We're still overdue a downturn - I also recall Robert and myself being quite pessimistic about the timing of the referendum. That said, the immediate blow to confidence was clearly overstated.
Britain has the world's top economy after Brexit -- can a Times reader or subscriber briefly outline in what sense or by what measure that might be true (and why it seems to be in the present tense)?
Highest GDP growth for one quarter?
No, for 2016 as a whole. There is also a lot of scepticism about the supposed downturn this year. The Bank and OBR are going to have egg on their faces in a few months when the forecasts are revised up to 2% hich is barely any different to this year or the UK's trend growth rate.
Lets remember what Cameron and Osborne predicted would happen immediately after a Leave vote:
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
After a decade of GDP predictions which were higher than what actually happened (thus suiting the purposes of governments) we get a prediction in which GDP does worse than what actually happened. And by an amazing coincidence that prediction for a recession is also what suited the government's purposes.
And yet we're told not to question the 'expertise' and 'neutrality' of the Sir Humphreys - or as its the Treasury in this case the Sir Franks:
Dr. Foxinsox, sounds interesting. Most of the military-to-management books appear to be Chinese (typically Sun Tzu, but also Sun Bin, Zhuge Liang, Liu Ji and Sima Yi).
However, I agree with Mr. CD13. If we label anything from the EU as 'essential', they'll simply whack an enormous price tag on it.
Bungay's book on the Battle of Britain is also very interesting. He makes a powerful case that we won by superior planning via a flexible command system, while the Luftwaffe relied on talented mavericks who didn't co-ordinate or agree strategic objectives.
Diehard with a Vengeance (1995) on BBC1 and a woman expresses disbelief by saying 'and I'm going to marry Donald Trump' shows the extent of his fame even then
Looks like an interesting weekend - a state of emergency comes into effect at 4pm tomorrow and we're expecting 4-8 inches of snow locally tomorrow overnight. We've been warned to expect to be stuck at home for 3 days.
Would this be happening if Hillary had won?
More importantly NFL playoffs...
You asked about OA on Netflix - its okay, not worth 10hrs. It'd be fine as a film.
The reason I don't want to talk about Brexit any more, and find it a yawn, is not because I have lost faith in it, but because I have - as I have now proved - been campaigning for it and journalising for it for 20 solid years. Ever since PB began (and before) as old timers here will know.
Therefore to me many of the arguments are unbelievably stupid or dull or repetitive. I've rehashed them in my mind and in articles trillions of times.
Of course to others they are new and fresh. You've never had to think about this stuff before. But I have done the thinking many times.
I just want Brexit. I don't really care if it is soft hard clean clumsy silly or stupendous. Just Brexit. Let the geeks work out the details. I appreciate others will find the minutiae fascinating.
It is boring and we're all repeating ourselves. The reason I essentially KNOW Brexit will be a huge mess is that there is no plan for Brexit, there never has been and never will be. Leavers have never articulated a coherent direction for Brexit, let alone a realistic worked out plan. Some preposterously blame David Cameron for not doing their thinking for them. Finally because no-one, Leaver as well as Remainer, is willing to take ownership of the project.
Think of it as a war, and consider Von Moltke's splendid words
"The tactical result of an engagement forms the base for new strategic decisions because victory or defeat in a battle changes the situation to such a degree that no human acumen is able to see beyond the first battle. In this sense one should understand Napoleon's saying: "I have never had a plan of operations."
Therefore no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force."
It's such a fluid situation that it isn't plannable beyond the opening gambit. We'll be fine though.
All of that's fine, and we'll see what transpires. My point was that here we are on a political website (betting-orientated, but with plenty of non-betting contributors) and half the Brexiters on it say: "I don't want to talk about [the most important political event in our adult lifetimes]."
Makes no sense. Smacks of them not wanting to talk about it because they know the shitshow it will be and they would prefer not to be around when it all hits the fan. Is it a shitshow? Will it hit the fan? Who knows - but not to want to discuss it on PB is bizarre.
Trump, as I have said plenty before, is in the Kremlin's pocket.
Is it just money, how a guy who's businesses were $900million down suddenly had money to burn?
Is it that they have compromising information about his leisure activities whilst he was Russia many years ago?
The US has a President who is more interested in keeping his interests with a foreign and hostile state above his own country.
-US intelligence has intercepts of senior Kremlin types expressing their particular views of Trump and his particular position with them. This is not just the Russians congratulating themselves as reported in the Washington Post.
-A 3rd party, ostensibly friendly, intelligence agency was so keen to get what they believed was the compromising Russian material on Trump that they went straight for bribery by letting it be known via whatever channels they had in Russia that they'd be willing to pay a large amount of cash. This was before the election.
Trump is in way over his head, the question is whether the spooks can muster themselves to bring him down. This is a tricky stance to take.
Cuckoo Cuckoo, come in Tapestry your time under cover is up.
Trump is also a billionaire but spent less than Clinton
Is he really a billionaire? If I remember rightly, his asset calculation included a large sum for his 'brand'. Which is a very different kind of asset to - say - money.
As one example. They all show the same thing. The UK is Germany's 3rd biggest export market behind France and the USA but ahead of china.
I think the MIT data is for physical goods only and excludes services. I don't know if that would change the orderings at all.
Overall I think we are Germany's second largest trading partner by total volume of imports and exports, third largest importer of German goods. I no longer have the means (or motivation) to look it up though.
The reason I don't want to talk about Brexit any more, and find it a yawn, is not because I have lost faith in it, but because I have - as I have now proved - been campaigning for it and journalising for it for 20 solid years. Ever since PB began (and before) as old timers here will know.
Therefore to me many of the arguments are unbelievably stupid or dull or repetitive. I've rehashed them in my mind and in articles trillions of times.
Of course to others they are new and fresh. You've never had to think about this stuff before. But I have done the thinking many times.
I just want Brexit. I don't really care if it is soft hard clean clumsy silly or stupendous. Just Brexit. Let the geeks work out the details. I appreciate others will find the minutiae fascinating.
It is boring and we're all repeating ourselves. The reason I essentially KNOW Brexit will be a huge mess is that there is no plan for Brexit, there never has been and never will be. Leavers have never articulated a coherent direction for Brexit, let alone a realistic worked out plan. Some preposterously blame David Cameron for not doing their thinking for them. Finally because no-one, Leaver as well as Remainer, is willing to take ownership of the project.
Think of it as a war, and consider Von Moltke's splendid words
"The tactical result of an engagement forms the base for new strategic decisions because victory or defeat in a battle changes the situation to such a degree that no human acumen is able to see beyond the first battle. In this sense one should understand Napoleon's saying: "I have never had a plan of operations."
Therefore no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force."
It's such a fluid situation that it isn't plannable beyond the opening gambit. We'll be fine though.
All of that's fine, and we'll see what transpires. My point was that here we are on a political website (betting-orientated, but with plenty of non-betting contributors) and half the Brexiters on it say: "I don't want to talk about [the most important political event in our adult lifetimes]."
Makes no sense. Smacks of them not wanting to talk about it because they know the shitshow it will be and they would prefer not to be around when it all hits the fan. Is it a shitshow? Will it hit the fan? Who knows - but not to want to discuss it on PB is bizarre.
Morning all,
Napoleon presumably therefore had no plan of operations when he invaded Russia. That could explain the catastrophic results.
It is boring and we're all repeating ourselves. The reason I essentially KNOW Brexit will be a huge mess is that there is no plan for Brexit, there never has been and never will be. Leavers have never articulated a coherent direction for Brexit, let alone a realistic worked out plan. Some preposterously blame David Cameron for not doing their thinking for them. Finally because no-one, Leaver as well as Remainer, is willing to take ownership of the project.
Think of it as a war, and consider Von Moltke's splendid words
"The tactical result of an engagement forms the base for new strategic decisions because victory or defeat in a battle changes the situation to such a degree that no human acumen is able to see beyond the first battle. In this sense one should understand Napoleon's saying: "I have never had a plan of operations."
Therefore no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force."
It's such a fluid situation that it isn't plannable beyond the opening gambit. We'll be fine though.
All of that's fine, and we'll see what transpires. My point was that here we are on a political website (betting-orientated, but with plenty of non-betting contributors) and half the Brexiters on it say: "I don't want to talk about [the most important political event in our adult lifetimes]."
Makes no sense. Smacks of them not wanting to talk about it because they know the shitshow it will be and they would prefer not to be around when it all hits the fan. Is it a shitshow? Will it hit the fan? Who knows - but not to want to discuss it on PB is bizarre.
It has more to do with not revealing our hand in advance of the negotiations, to:
A. Those who will sit opposite us. A Mr Cameron tried that one last time and it didn't work out too well.
B. Those, ostensibly on our own side, who would rather there were no negotiations at all and who we know will try to frustrate the whole process, so that it is seen to either fail or more preferably not begin.
Dr. Foxinsox, sounds interesting. Most of the military-to-management books appear to be Chinese (typically Sun Tzu, but also Sun Bin, Zhuge Liang, Liu Ji and Sima Yi).
However, I agree with Mr. CD13. If we label anything from the EU as 'essential', they'll simply whack an enormous price tag on it.
Bungay's book on the Battle of Britain is also very interesting. He makes a powerful case that we won by superior planning via a flexible command system, while the Luftwaffe relied on talented mavericks who didn't co-ordinate or agree strategic objectives.
I think Keith Park was possibly the finest general we had in WW2. He fought the BoB as a STRATEGIC thing. SunZi: 'Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat'. The strategy was to survive and still be around to screw up a potential German invasion (Operation Sealion). He very very deliberately only fed in enough opposition each day to frustrate German raids but without letting RAF casualty rates get too high. He was under tremendous pressure from some of his more gung-ho colleagues (such as Leigh-Mallory) to put more planes in the air and make a big fight of it - which would have led to an early exit and defeat. The Germans on the other hand played their strategy abysmally. Didn't do nearly enough damage to radar stations (which made the RAF effort massively more efficient). Bombed London before they'd killed the RAF. They thought they were getting ahead when they weren't. They were fighting tactically. It all came to a head on Sep 15th 1940 'Eagle Day'. Goering wanted a final push to deliver a coup de grace to the RAF. Park sensed this and for the first time in nearly 3 months of bitter attritional fighting ordered an all out effort - even requesting additional squadrons from outside 11 Group - flooding the skies of southern England with fighters for the first time. The RAF did a lot of material damage that day, but not as much as you might expect. Much more importantly, they inflicted a crushing psychological blow to the Luftwaffe which simply could not believe the vast numbers of RAF fighters in the sky that day. That day the Luftwaffe realised it could not win, their own casualty rates becoming critical. Game set and match to Park. A brilliant and patient strategist who was also top notch at tactics.
Tn that it isn't plannable beyond the opening gambit. We'll be fine though.
All of that's fine, and we'll see what transpires. My point was that here we are on a political website (betting-orientated, but with plenty of ortant political event in our adult lifetimes]."
Makes no sense. Smacks of them not wanting to talk about it because they know the shitshow it will be and they would prefer not to be around when it all hits the fan. Is it a shitshow? Will it hit the fan? Who knows - but not to want to discuss it on PB is bizarre.
It has more to do with not revealing our hand in advance of the negotiations, to:
A. Those who will sit opposite us. A Mr Cameron tried that one last time and it didn't work out too well.
B. Those, ostensibly on our own side, who would rather there were no negotiations at all and who we know will try to frustrate the whole process, so that it is seen to either fail or more preferably not begin.
Well I'm talking about PB contributors. If you are talking about the actual players, there is a different angle. At the moment, as people have pointed out, as have I, the government (govt + civil service) is still a long way from determining what they want. It's not a case of we have a strategy we don't want to say what it is. It is we don't yet have a strategy because this shit's complicated and we need to get our heads round it all before we develop that strategy.
At the moment the government is in consultation mode, taking industry input. After that presumably a strategy will emerge. The civil service, meanwhile, is miles from being properly staffed up to execute any strategy as it stands today and, with the civil service timescales being what they are, I have my doubts as to whether they will be ready come end-March and A50. If there is that strategy by then. It is a formidable task and I wish TMay had said she would trigger in a year to give us more time to understand, sector by sector, industry by industry, the optimal route.
Now, my main grip with Tezza and her no running commentary is that if she had said something resembling the paragraph above - it's a huge task, we are approaching it methodically, we will keep you updated as we ourselves gain more understanding of our priorities, etc - then I would have had a tremendous respect for her. Instead, and perhaps this is the law of politics, she was forced to say or imply that the government has a handle on it all already but don't want to tell us what they are thinking. Could another PM have been more candid? Not sure. Does it serve her well not to be candid? Nope.
The reason I don't waB began (and before) as old timers here will know.
Therefore to me many of the arguments are unbelievably stupid or dull or repetitive. I've rehashed them in my mind and in articles trillions of times.
Of course to others they are new and fresh. You've never had to think about this stuff before. But I have done the thinking many times.
I just want Brexit. I don't really care if it is soft hard clean clumsy silly or stupendous. Just Brexit. Let the geeks work out the details. I appreciate others will find the minutiae fascinating.
It is boring and we're all repeating ourselves. The reason I essentially KNOW Brexit will be a huge mess is that there is no plan for Brexit, there never has been and never will be. Leavers have never articulated a coherent direction for Brexit, let alone a realistic worked out plan. Some preposterously blame David Cameron for not doing their thinking for them. Finally because no-one, Leaver as well as Remainer, is willing to take ownership of the project.
Think of it as a war, and consider Von Moltke's splendid words
"The tactical result of an engagement forms the base for new strategic decisions because victory or defeat in a battle changes the situation to such a degree that no human acumen is able to see beyond the first battle. In this sense one should understand Napoleon's saying: "I have never had a plan of operations."
Therefore no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force."
It's such a fluid situation that it isn't plannable beyond the opening gambit. We'll be fine though.
All of that's fine, and we'll see what transpires. My point was that here we are on a political website (betting-orientated, but with plenty of non-betting contributors) and half the Brexiters on it say: "I don't want to talk about [the most important political event in our adult lifetimes]."
Makes no sense. Smacks of them not wanting to talk about it because they know the shitshow it will be and they would prefer not to be around when it all hits the fan. Is it a shitshow? Will it hit the fan? Who knows - but not to want to discuss it on PB is bizarre.
Morning all,
Napoleon presumably therefore had no plan of operations when he invaded Russia. That could explain the catastrophic results.
If this analogy supports my point, then I agree wholeheartedly; if it contradicts it, then it is wholly irrelevant and a misguided comparison.
Think of it as a war, and consider Von Moltke's splendid words
"The tactical result of an engagement forms the base for new strategic decisions because victory or defeat in a battle changes the situation to such a degree that no human acumen is able to see beyond the first battle. In this sense one should understand Napoleon's saying: "I have never had a plan of operations."
Therefore no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force."
It's such a fluid situation that it isn't plannable beyond the opening gambit. We'll be fine though.
I would feel more confident in Von Moltke's splendid words if there had ever been a "plan of operations" that could fail on first contact with hostile forces or if any "strategic decisions" new or old were ever likely to transpire. I don't think Von Moltke recommends dispensing with plans or strategy entirely because you might not like what they entail.
The plan for Brexit is clear, gain control of UK borders and get some sort of trade deal with the EU. How far that us achievable is another matter and will be the focus of the negotiations
I suppose that could count as a direction ... For completeness we can add no ECJ oversight. The thing is, our relationship with the EU and the rest of the world is complicated and will become more so after Brexit. We are not considering anything other than those two red lines. In any case control over immigration and avoidance of supernational oversight is unlikely to be absolute even under hard Brexit scenarios. It doesn't invalidate the objectives but if we are talking about degrees rather than absolutes that allows trade-offs.
We are going to Brexit but we haven't even started to debate what we want from it and how we are going to achieve our objectives. I doubt we ever will. What we will get is reaction to events and a lot of ill-will.
That is what May and Davis aspire to and it us they who will deal on behalf of the UK nobody else so what others think irrelevant
Who gets to tell BoJo and Fox they're irrelevant?
Fox is Minister for negotiating trade deals outside the EU and Johnson is Foreign Secretary. Neither have direct responsibility for negotiating with the EU unlike May and Davis so in effect their views on that are irrelevant
Trump, as I have said plenty before, is in the Kremlin's pocket.
Is it just money, how a guy who's businesses were $900million down suddenly had money to burn?
Is it that they have compromising information about his leisure activities whilst he was Russia many years ago?
The US has a President who is more interested in keeping his interests with a foreign and hostile state above his own country.
-US intelligence has intercepts of senior Kremlin types expressing their particular views of Trump and his particular position with them. This is not just the Russians congratulating themselves as reported in the Washington Post.
-A 3rd party, ostensibly friendly, intelligence agency was so keen to get what they believed was the compromising Russian material on Trump that they went straight for bribery by letting it be known via whatever channels they had in Russia that they'd be willing to pay a large amount of cash. This was before the election.
Trump is in way over his head, the question is whether the spooks can muster themselves to bring him down. This is a tricky stance to take.
Cuckoo Cuckoo, come in Tapestry your time under cover is up.
Trump is also a billionaire but spent less than Clinton
Is he really a billionaire? If I remember rightly, his asset calculation included a large sum for his 'brand'. Which is a very different kind of asset to - say - money.
Most billionaires wealth is partly tied up in assets, Forbes says he is worth $4 billion which makes him the richest president ever elected
Think of it as a war, and consider Von Moltke's splendid words
"The tactical result of an engagement forms the base for new strategic decisions because victory or defeat in a battle changes the situation to such a degree that no human acumen is able to see beyond the first battle. In this sense one should understand Napoleon's saying: "I have never had a plan of operations."
Therefore no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force."
It's such a fluid situation that it isn't plannable beyond the opening gambit. We'll be fine though.
I would feel more confident in Von Moltke's splendid words if there had ever been a "plan of operations" that could fail on first contact with hostile forces or if any "strategic decisions" new or old were ever likely to transpire. I don't think Von Moltke recommends dispensing with plans or strategy entirely because you might not like what they entail.
The plan for Brexit is clear, gain control of UK borders and get some sort of trade deal with the EU. How far that us achievable is another matter and will be the focus of the negotiations
I suppose that could count as a direction ... For completeness we can add no ECJ oversight. The thing is, our relationship with the EU and the rest of the world is complicated and will become more so after Brexit. We are not considering anything other than those two red lines. In any case control over immigration and avoidance of supernational oversight is unlikely to be absolute even under hard Brexit scenarios. It doesn't invalidate the objectives but if we are talking about degrees rather than absolutes that allows trade-offs.
We are going to Brexit but we haven't even started to debate what we want from it and how we are going to achieve our objectives. I doubt we ever will. What we will get is reaction to events and a lot of ill-will.
Most likely the end result will be a fudge between objective and outcome but that is the objective
I have no problem with people wanting to discuss the complexities of the deal we are to have with the EU. This is not only a matter of great national interest but also has obvious political and betting implications (resignations, elections, leadership issues, party splits, etc etc).
What I am finding a little tedious, 6 months on, is the constant refighting of the merits of a decision already taken. Are we still going to be arguing that Hillary really won in 4 months time? And what exactly could that achieve?
Those remainers who accept the decision (such as @foxinsox) has been taken but argue for a softer Brexit to minimise the impact of a decision they did not agree with have valid points to make. I think it would be idiotic, notwithstanding the current growth, not to appreciate and accept that Brexit will have a short term impact on this country and that it makes sense to mitigate that so far as possible. Uncertainty is rarely good for business. But those who seek to twist every piece of news into a highly contrived "I told you so" are not only wrong but tedious and irrelevant.
(Snip) The strategy was to survive and still be around to screw up a potential German invasion (Operation Sealion). He very very deliberately only fed in enough opposition each day to frustrate German raids but without letting RAF casualty rates get too high. He was under tremendous pressure from some of his more gung-ho colleagues (such as Leigh-Mallory) to put more planes in the air and make a big fight of it - which would have led to an early exit and defeat. The Germans on the other hand played their strategy abysmally. Didn't do nearly enough damage to radar stations (which made the RAF effort massively more efficient). Bombed London before they'd killed the RAF. They thought they were getting ahead when they weren't. They were fighting tactically. It all came to a head on Sep 15th 1940 'Eagle Day'. Goering wanted a final push to deliver a coup de grace to the RAF. Park sensed this and for the first time in nearly 3 months of bitter attritional fighting ordered an all out effort - even requesting additional squadrons from outside 11 Group - flooding the skies of southern England with fighters for the first time. The RAF did a lot of material damage that day, but not as much as you might expect. Much more importantly, they inflicted a crushing psychological blow to the Luftwaffe which simply could not believe the vast numbers of RAF fighters in the sky that day. That day the Luftwaffe realised it could not win, their own casualty rates becoming critical. Game set and match to Park. A brilliant and patient strategist who was also top notch at tactics.
Brilliant post thanks.
I recently read somewhere - it may have been on here, but I don't think it was - that the Luftwaffe's intelligence was way off. They knew roughly the number of squadrons we had, as we did theirs. But they were taking squadrons as being planes, when in reality people matter as much. The Germans treated a squadron as being a full number of pilots, whereas each of our squadrons had extras - pilots who were ill, injured, on leave, in training, etc, etc. Therefore the Germans were not reducing our pilots as much as they expected.
A fact made worse by the fact we were fighting over our ground: RAF pilots shot down over the UK who survived could soon go back into combat; German pilots shot down over the UK were generally out of the game.
In addition, we performed training differently. Squadrons away from the heat would have many trainees and a few experienced pilots; this allowed trainees to learn in a safer environment. As they gained experience they were moved (generally south) to areas that were under more threat. Squadrons in the hot areas would have few green trainees and many more experienced pilots.
Think of it as a war, and consider Von Moltke's splendid words
"The tactical result of an engagement forms the base for new strategic decisions because victory or defeat in a battle changes the situation to such a degree that no human acumen is able to see beyond the first battle. In this sense one should understand Napoleon's saying: "I have never had a plan of operations."
Therefore no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force."
It's such a fluid situation that it isn't plannable beyond the opening gambit. We'll be fine though.
I would feel more confident in Von Moltke's splendid words if there had ever been a "plan of operations" that could fail on first contact with hostile forces or if any "strategic decisions" new or old were ever likely to transpire. I don't think Von Moltke recommends dispensing with plans or strategy entirely because you might not like what they entail.
The plan for Brexit is clear, gain control of UK borders and get some sort of trade deal with the EU. How far that us achievable is another matter and will be the focus of the negotiations
I suppose that could count as a direction ... For completeness we can add no ECJ oversight. The thing is, our relationship with the EU and the rest of the world is complicated and will become more so after Brexit. We are not considering anything other than those two red lines. In any case control over immigration and avoidance of supernational oversight is unlikely to be absolute even under hard Brexit scenarios. It doesn't invalidate the objectives but if we are talking about degrees rather than absolutes that allows trade-offs.
We are going to Brexit but we haven't even started to debate what we want from it and how we are going to achieve our objectives. I doubt we ever will. What we will get is reaction to events and a lot of ill-will.
chortle
the implication that somehow Remain had a plan for staying in is just too funny for words
our in "plan" has been to ignore the direction the EU27 are heading , get ourselves pulled along without any understanding of what it all means, bitch and gripe at the edges and then cave in to the latest set of demands while calling it "influence" or denying it actually means what it says on the tin.
there never has been a Remain strategy but you seem quite happy with that.
Think of it as a war, and consider Von Moltke's splendid words
"The tactical result of an engagement forms the base for new strategic decisions because victory or defeat in a battle changes the situation to such a degree that no human acumen is able to see beyond the first battle. In this sense one should understand Napoleon's saying: "I have never had a plan of operations."
Therefore no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force."
It's such a fluid situation that it isn't plannable beyond the opening gambit. We'll be fine though.
I would feel more confident in Von Moltke's splendid words if there had ever been a "plan of operations" that could fail on first contact with hostile forces or if any "strategic decisions" new or old were ever likely to transpire. I don't think Von Moltke recommends dispensing with plans or strategy entirely because you might not like what they entail.
The plan for Brexit is clear, gain control of UK borders and get some sort of trade deal with the EU. How far that us achievable is another matter and will be the focus of the negotiations
I suppose that could count as a direction ... For completeness we can add no ECJ oversight. The thing is, our relationship with the EU and the rest of the world is complicated and will become more so after Brexit. We are not considering anything other than those two red lines. In any case control over immigration and avoidance of supernational oversight is unlikely to be absolute even under hard Brexit scenarios. It doesn't invalidate the objectives but if we are talking about degrees rather than absolutes that allows trade-offs.
We are going to Brexit but we haven't even started to debate what we want from it and how we are going to achieve our objectives. I doubt we ever will. What we will get is reaction to events and a lot of ill-will.
chortle
the implication that somehow Remain had a plan for staying in is just too funny for words
our in "plan" has been to ignore the direction the EU27 are heading , get ourselves pulled along without any understanding of what it all means, bitch and gripe at the edges and then cave in to the latest set of demands while calling it "influence" or denying it actually means what it says on the tin.
there never has been a Remain strategy but you seem quite happy with that.
'A seat at the top table' and other meaningless twaddle.
(Snip) The strategy was to survive and still be around to screw up a potential German invasion (Operation Sealion). He very very deliberately only fed in enough opposition each day to frustrate German raids but without letting RAF casualty rates get too high. He was under tremendous pressure from some of his more gung-ho colleagues (such as Leigh-Mallory) to put more planes in the air and make a big fight of it - which would have led to an early exit and defeat. The Germans on the other hand played their strategy abysmally. Didn't do nearly enough damage to radar stations (which made the RAF effort massively more efficient). Bombed London before they'd killed the RAF. They thought they were getting ahead when they weren't. They were fighting tactically. It all came to a head on Sep 15th 1940 'Eagle Day'. Goering wanted a final push to deliver a coup de grace to the RAF. Park sensed this and for the first time in nearly 3 months of bitter attritional fighting ordered an all out effort - even requesting additional squadrons from outside 11 Group - flooding the skies of southern England with fighters for the first time. The RAF did a lot of material damage that day, but not as much as you might expect. Much more importantly, they inflicted a crushing psychological blow to the Luftwaffe which simply could not believe the vast numbers of RAF fighters in the sky that day. That day the Luftwaffe realised it could not win, their own casualty rates becoming critical. Game set and match to Park. A brilliant and patient strategist who was also top notch at tactics.
Brilliant post thanks.
I recently read somewhere - it may have been on here, but I don't think it was - that the Luftwaffe's intelligence was way off. They knew roughly the number of squadrons we had, as we did theirs. But they were taking squadrons as being planes, when in reality people matter as much. The Germans treated a squadron as being a full number of pilots, whereas each of our squadrons had extras - pilots who were ill, injured, on leave, in training, etc, etc. Therefore the Germans were not reducing our pilots as much as they expected.
In addition, we performed training differently. Squadrons away from the heat would have many trainees and a few experienced pilots; this allowed trainees to learn in a safer environment. As they gained experience they were moved (generally south) to areas that were under more threat. Squadrons in the hot areas would have few green trainees and many more experienced pilots.
Sadly, I cannot remember where I read this ...
I knoiw one always worries about spies, but haven’t I heard somewhere that while, even in 1940, we were receiving intelligence from occupied Europe the number of German spies in UK was low, and further what they sent back was of poor quality.
As one example. They all show the same thing. The UK is Germany's 3rd biggest export market behind France and the USA but ahead of china.
I think the MIT data is for physical goods only and excludes services. I don't know if that would change the orderings at all.
Overall I think we are Germany's second largest trading partner by total volume of imports and exports, third largest importer of German goods. I no longer have the means (or motivation) to look it up though.
Dr. Foxinsox, sounds interesting. Most of the military-to-management books appear to be Chinese (typically Sun Tzu, but also Sun Bin, Zhuge Liang, Liu Ji and Sima Yi).
However, I agree with Mr. CD13. If we label anything from the EU as 'essential', they'll simply whack an enormous price tag on it.
Bungay's book on the Battle of Britain is also very interesting. He makes a powerful case that we won by superior planning via a flexible command system, while the Luftwaffe relied on talented mavericks who didn't co-ordinate or agree strategic objectives.
I think Keith Park was possibly the finest general we had in WW2. He fought the BoB as a STRATEGIC thing. SunZi: 'Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat'. The strategy was to survive and still be around to screw up a potential German invasion (Operation Sealion). He very very deliberately only fed in enough opposition each day to frustrate German raids but without letting RAF casualty rates get too high. He was under tremendous pressure from some of his more gung-ho colleagues (such as Leigh-Mallory) to put more planes in the air and make a big fight of it - which would have led to an early exit and defeat. The Germans on the other hand played their strategy abysmally. Didn't do nearly enough damage to radar stations (which made the RAF effort massively more efficient). Bombed London before they'd killed the RAF. They thought they were getting ahead when they weren't. They were fighting tactically. It all came to a head on Sep 15th 1940 'Eagle Day'. Goering wanted a final push to deliver a coup de grace to the RAF. Park sensed this and for the first time in nearly 3 months of bitter attritional fighting ordered an all out effort - even requesting additional squadrons from outside 11 Group - flooding the skies of southern England with fighters for the first time. The RAF did a lot of material damage that day, but not as much as you might expect. Much more importantly, they inflicted a crushing psychological blow to the Luftwaffe which simply could not believe the vast numbers of RAF fighters in the sky that day. That day the Luftwaffe realised it could not win, their own casualty rates becoming critical. Game set and match to Park. A brilliant and patient strategist who was also top notch at tactics.
Park was also the decisive factor in the Air battle for Malta, and also in the 1944-5 operations in Burma. Consistently brilliant, and incidentally a Kiwi.
Dr. Foxinsox, sounds interesting. Most of the military-to-management books appear to be Chinese (typically Sun Tzu, but also Sun Bin, Zhuge Liang, Liu Ji and Sima Yi).
However, I agree with Mr. CD13. If we label anything from the EU as 'essential', they'll simply whack an enormous price tag on it.
Bungay's book on the Battle of Britain is also very interesting. He makes a powerful case that we won by superior planning via a flexible command system, while the Luftwaffe relied on talented mavericks who didn't co-ordinate or agree strategic objectives.
I think Keith Park was possibly the finest general we had in WW2. He fought the BoB as a STRATEGIC thing. SunZi: 'Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat'. The strategy was to survive and still be around to screw up a potential German invasion (Operation Sealion). He very very deliberately only fed in enough opposition each day to frustrate German raids but without letting RAF casualty rates get too high. He was under tremendous pressure from some of his more gung-ho colleagues (such as Leigh-Mallory) to put more planes in the air and make a big fight of it - which would have led to an early exit and defeat. The Germans on the other hand played their strategy abysmally. Didn't do nearly enough damage to radar stations (which made the RAF effort massively more efficient). Bombed London before they'd killed the RAF. They thought they were getting ahead when they weren't. They were fighting tactically. It all came to a head on Sep 15th 1940 'Eagle Day'. Goering wanted a final push to deliver a coup de grace to the RAF. Park sensed this and for the first time in nearly 3 months of bitter attritional fighting ordered an all out effort - even requesting additional squadrons from outside 11 Group - flooding the skies of southern England with fighters for the first time. The RAF did a lot of material damage that day, but not as much as you might expect. Much more importantly, they inflicted a crushing psychological blow to the Luftwaffe which simply could not believe the vast numbers of RAF fighters in the sky that day. That day the Luftwaffe realised it could not win, their own casualty rates becoming critical. Game set and match to Park. A brilliant and patient strategist who was also top notch at tactics.
I have no problem with people wanting to discuss the complexities of the deal we are to have with the EU. This is not only a matter of great national interest but also has obvious political and betting implications (resignations, elections, leadership issues, party splits, etc etc).
What I am finding a little tedious, 6 months on, is the constant refighting of the merits of a decision already taken. Are we still going to be arguing that Hillary really won in 4 months time? And what exactly could that achieve?
Those remainers who accept the decision (such as @foxinsox) has been taken but argue for a softer Brexit to minimise the impact of a decision they did not agree with have valid points to make. I think it would be idiotic, notwithstanding the current growth, not to appreciate and accept that Brexit will have a short term impact on this country and that it makes sense to mitigate that so far as possible. Uncertainty is rarely good for business. But those who seek to twist every piece of news into a highly contrived "I told you so" are not only wrong but tedious and irrelevant.
I am now supporting Hard Brexit. I think soft Brexit is neither desirable nor attainable and is a dangerous chimera.
Think of it as a war, and consider Von Moltke's splendid words
"The tactical result of an engagement forms the base for new strategic decisions because victory or defeat in a battle changes the situation to such a degree that no human acumen is able to see beyond the first battle. In this sense one should understand Napoleon's saying: "I have never had a plan of operations."
Therefore no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force."
It's such a fluid situation that it isn't plannable beyond the opening gambit. We'll be fine though.
I would feel more confident in Von Moltke's splendid words if there had ever been a "plan of operations" that could fail on first contact with hostile forces or if any "strategic decisions" new or old were ever likely to transpire. I don't think Von Moltke recommends dispensing with plans or strategy entirely because you might not like what they entail.
The plan for Brexit is clear, gain control of UK borders and get some sort of trade deal with the EU. How far that us achievable is another matter and will be the focus of the negotiations
I suppose that could count as a direction ... For completeness we can add no ECJ oversight. The thing is, our relationship with the EU and the rest of the world is complicated and will become more so after Brexit. We are not considering anything other than those two red lines. In any case control over immigration and avoidance of supernational oversight is unlikely to be absolute even under hard Brexit scenarios. It doesn't invalidate the objectives but if we are talking about degrees rather than absolutes that allows trade-offs.
We are going to Brexit but we haven't even started to debate what we want from it and how we are going to achieve our objectives. I doubt we ever will. What we will get is reaction to events and a lot of ill-will.
chortle
the implication that somehow Remain had a plan for staying in is just too funny for words
our in "plan" has been to ignore the direction the EU27 are heading , get ourselves pulled along without any understanding of what it all means, bitch and gripe at the edges and then cave in to the latest set of demands while calling it "influence" or denying it actually means what it says on the tin.
there never has been a Remain strategy but you seem quite happy with that.
Your usual deflection, Alan. If we were Remaining that might be a valid objection (although I don't think it is - our plan would be to be signed up to whatever the EU is. Whether that's acceptable is another matter, but it is a coherent plan). But we're Leaving and where we go now is all that matters.
I note that the attrition rate by assassination for US presidents is 4/43 or nearly 10%. I scrupulously refrain from calculating probabilities from this figure, but it does show that assassination is in the US political dna. I am sure the Secret Service are amazingly good at their job but one doesn't need to read that many political thrillers to envisage the possibility of them deliberately falling down on the job.
As one example. They all show the same thing. The UK is Germany's 3rd biggest export market behind France and the USA but ahead of china.
I think the MIT data is for physical goods only and excludes services. I don't know if that would change the orderings at all.
Overall I think we are Germany's second largest trading partner by total volume of imports and exports, third largest importer of German goods. I no longer have the means (or motivation) to look it up though.
Go pack!
Already done! I live on a mattress in my old room in my parents house at the moment. Fiji first though.
I note that the attrition rate by assassination for US presidents is 4/43 or nearly 10%. I scrupulously refrain from calculating probabilities from this figure, but it does show that assassination is in the US political dna. I am sure the Secret Service are amazingly good at their job but one doesn't need to read that many political thrillers to envisage the possibility of them deliberately falling down on the job.
Not quite. There hasn't been an assassination for over 50 years, which suggests either the DNA or the Presidential security has changed...
Additional factoid about Operation Sealion. It was by far the largest German operation of WW2 in terms of men, materials, cost and prep effort. Larger even than Barabarossa. They just never got to execute it. In fact the drain it imposed upon the Germans was a significant reason for the delay in launching Barbarossa a year later. A year the Russians made use of.
@carryonkeith: When Brexit fails, remember it'll have been the fault of those who voted Remain & the Civil Service. So don't blame Brexiteers' genius idea.
As one example. They all show the same thing. The UK is Germany's 3rd biggest export market behind France and the USA but ahead of china.
I think the MIT data is for physical goods only and excludes services. I don't know if that would change the orderings at all.
Overall I think we are Germany's second largest trading partner by total volume of imports and exports, third largest importer of German goods. I no longer have the means (or motivation) to look it up though.
Go pack!
Already done! I live on a mattress in my old room in my parents house at the moment. Fiji first though.
I have no problem with people wanting to discuss the complexities of the deal we are to have with the EU. This is not only a matter of great national interest but also has obvious political and betting implications (resignations, elections, leadership issues, party splits, etc etc).
What I am finding a little tedious, 6 months on, is the constant refighting of the merits of a decision already taken. Are we still going to be arguing that Hillary really won in 4 months time? And what exactly could that achieve?
Those remainers who accept the decision (such as @foxinsox) has been taken but argue for a softer Brexit to minimise the impact of a decision they did not agree with have valid points to make. I think it would be idiotic, notwithstanding the current growth, not to appreciate and accept that Brexit will have a short term impact on this country and that it makes sense to mitigate that so far as possible. Uncertainty is rarely good for business. But those who seek to twist every piece of news into a highly contrived "I told you so" are not only wrong but tedious and irrelevant.
I am now supporting Hard Brexit. I think soft Brexit is neither desirable nor attainable and is a dangerous chimera.
Interesting. I would prefer us to move in the other direction although I accept the analysis on here that hard Brexit is looking increasingly likely, is not the end of the world and is something we should accept rather than a very bad deal.
My priorities are, above all, being out, being free of the CJE, having a situation where the EU makes as little of our law as is consistent with a working trade relationship and having better control of immigration.
There are a whole range of areas where I think co-operation would be a good thing but I am relaxed about whether this happens in the Brexit timetable or not. The one I find most difficult to judge is membership of the customs union. I really liked the idea floated yesterday where we were in for the purposes of intra-EU trade (including imports re-exported to the continent) but out for other purposes. If that were indeed possible it would be ideal.
Bloody hell. I've spent the last few days writing a magnum opus on how the House of Lords playing silly beggars over Brexit could trigger an early election, and now Lord Fowler makes my piece redundant.
Exclusive: Peers will not sabotage Brexit, Lord Speaker tells Theresa May ahead of Supreme Court ruling
Think of it as a war, and consider Von Moltke's splendid words
"The tactical result of an engagement forms the base for new strategic decisions because victory or defeat in a battle changes the situation to such a degree that no human acumen is able to see beyond the first battle. In this sense one should understand Napoleon's saying: "I have never had a plan of operations."
Therefore no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force."
It's such a fluid situation that it isn't plannable beyond the opening gambit. We'll be fine though.
I would feel more confident in Von Moltke's splendid words if there had ever been a "plan of operations" that could fail on first contact with hostile forces or if any "strategic decisions" new or old were ever likely to transpire. I don't think Von Moltke recommends dispensing with plans or strategy entirely because you might not like what they entail.
The plan for Brexit is clear, gain control of UK borders and get some sort of trade deal with the EU. How far that us achievable is another matter and will be the focus of the negotiations
I suppose thatf ill-will.
chortle
the implication that somehow Remain had a plan for staying in is just too funny for words
our in "plan" has been to ignore the direction the EU27 are heading , get ourselves pulled along without any understanding of what it all means, bitch and gripe at the edges and then cave in to the latest set of demands while calling it "influence" or denying it actually means what it says on the tin.
there never has been a Remain strategy but you seem quite happy with that.
Your usual deflection, Alan. If we were Remaining that might be a valid objection (although I don't think it is - our plan would be to be signed up to whatever the EU is. Whether that's acceptable is another matter, but it is a coherent plan). But we're Leaving and where we go now is all that matters.
No deflection at all
I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency of demanding an instant "plan" for Europe now when for the last three decades we haven't had one .
Maybe it's going to take Brexit to force us to face up to what we actually want as a country
I have no problem with people wanting to discuss the complexities of the deal we are to have with the EU. This is not only a matter of great national interest but also has obvious political and betting implications (resignations, elections, leadership issues, party splits, etc etc).
What I am finding a little tedious, 6 months on, is the constant refighting of the merits of a decision already taken. Are we still going to be arguing that Hillary really won in 4 months time? And what exactly could that achieve?
Those remainers who accept the decision (such as @foxinsox) has been taken but argue for a softer Brexit to minimise the impact of a decision they did not agree with have valid points to make. I think it would be idiotic, notwithstanding the current growth, not to appreciate and accept that Brexit will have a short term impact on this country and that it makes sense to mitigate that so far as possible. Uncertainty is rarely good for business. But those who seek to twist every piece of news into a highly contrived "I told you so" are not only wrong but tedious and irrelevant.
I am now supporting Hard Brexit. I think soft Brexit is neither desirable nor attainable and is a dangerous chimera.
Both Ian Dunt (arch-Remainer) and Fraser Nelson (liberal Leaver) have suggested in the last 24 hours that now is a time for a rapprochement between Remainers and liberal Leavers. The suspicious might think that this was co-ordinated. The charitable might think that Fraser Nelson's article was a response to Ian Dunt's olive branch. Or it could, of course, be a coincidence.
Anyway, it's academic. Hard Brexit vs soft Brexit is not a choice for the UK to make alone. As you say, it's a chimera. The choice, as an erstwhile ambassador to the EU suggested, is between managed and orderly departure compared to a disorderly, chaotic exit.
Reads to me like an exercise in getting the excuses in early - if the actual withdrawal results in a tin of worms, then blame British consumer debt and Trump.
@carryonkeith: When Brexit fails, remember it'll have been the fault of those who voted Remain & the Civil Service. So don't blame Brexiteers' genius idea.
or it could be the crappy Remain campaign couldnt convince a bunch of thickies
Think of it as a war, and consider Von Moltke's splendid words
"The tactical result of an engagement forms the base for new strategic decisions because victory or defeat in a battle changes the situation to such a degree that no human acumen is able to see beyond the first battle. In this sense one should understand Napoleon's saying: "I have never had a plan of operations."
Therefore no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force."
It's such a fluid situation that it isn't plannable beyond the opening gambit. We'll be fine though.
I would feel more confident in Von Moltke's splendid words if there had ever been a "plan of operations" that could fail on first contact with hostile forces or if any "strategic decisions" new or old were ever likely to transpire. I don't think Von Moltke recommends dispensing with plans or strategy entirely because you might not like what they entail.
The plan for Brexit is clear, gain control of UK borders and get some sort of trade deal with the EU. How far that us achievable is another matter and will be the focus of the negotiations
I suppose thatf ill-will.
chortle
the implication that somehow Remain had a plan for staying in is just too funny for words
our in "plan" has been to ignore the direction the EU27 are heading , get ourselves pulled along without any understanding of what it all means, bitch and gripe at the edges and then cave in to the latest set of demands while calling it "influence" or denying it actually means what it says on the tin.
there never has been a Remain strategy but you seem quite happy with that.
Your usual deflection, Alan. If we were Remaining that might be a valid objection (although I don't think it is - our plan would be to be signed up to whatever the EU is. Whether that's acceptable is another matter, but it is a coherent plan). But we're Leaving and where we go now is all that matters.
No deflection at all
I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency of demanding an instant "plan" for Europe now when for the last three decades we haven't had one .
Maybe it's going to take Brexit to force us to face up to what we actually want as a country
Think of it as a war, and consider Von Moltke's splendid words
"The tactical result of an engagement forms the base for new strategic decisions because victory or defeat in a battle changes the situation to such a degree that no human acumen is able to see beyond the first battle. In this sense one should understand Napoleon's saying: "I have never had a plan of operations."
Therefore no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force."
It's such a fluid situation that it isn't plannable beyond the opening gambit. We'll be fine though.
I would feel more confident in Von Moltke's splendid words if there had ever been a "plan of operations" that could fail on first contact with hostile forces or if any "strategic decisions" new or old were ever likely to transpire. I don't think Von Moltke recommends dispensing with plans or strategy entirely because you might not like what they entail.
The plan for Brexit is clear, gain control of UK borders and get some sort of trade deal with the EU. How far that us achievable is another matter and will be the focus of the negotiations
I suppose thatf ill-will.
chortle
the implication that somehow Remain had a plan for staying in is just too funny for words
our in "plan" has been to ignore the direction the EU27 are heading , get ourselves pulled along without any understanding of what it all means, bitch and gripe at the edges and then cave in to the latest set of demands while calling it "influence" or denying it actually means what it says on the tin.
there never has been a Remain strategy but you seem quite happy with that.
Your usual deflection, Alan. If we were Remaining that might be a valid objection (although I don't think it is - our plan would be to be signed up to whatever the EU is. Whether that's acceptable is another matter, but it is a coherent plan). But we're Leaving and where we go now is all that matters.
No deflection at all
I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency of demanding an instant "plan" for Europe now when for the last three decades we haven't had one .
Maybe it's going to take Brexit to force us to face up to what we actually want as a country
Not to exist anymore?
That was the Remainer plan
we end up subsumed in the Superstate by osmosis and the electorate dont get a say
(Snip) The strategy was to survive and still be around to screw up a potential German invasion (Operation Sealion). He very very deliberately only fed in enough opposition each day to frustrate German raids but without letting RAF casualty rates get too high. He was under tremendous pressure from some of his more gung-ho colleagues (such as Leigh-Mallory) to put more planes in the air and make a big fight of it - which would have led to an early exit and defeat. The Germans on the other hand played their strategy abysmally. Didn't do nearly enough damage to radar stations (which made the RAF effort massively more efficient). Bombed London before they'd killed the RAF. They thought they were getting ahead when they weren't. They were fighting tactically. It all came to a head on Sep 15th 1940 'Eagle Day'. Goering wanted a final push to deliver a coup de grace to the RAF. Park sensed this and for the first time in nearly 3 months of bitter attritional fighting ordered an all out effort - even requesting additional squadrons from outside 11 Group - flooding the skies of southern England with fighters for the first time. The RAF did a lot of material damage that day, but not as much as you might expect. Much more importantly, they inflicted a crushing psychological blow to the Luftwaffe which simply could not believe the vast numbers of RAF fighters in the sky that day. That day the Luftwaffe realised it could not win, their own casualty rates becoming critical. Game set and match to Park. A brilliant and patient strategist who was also top notch at tactics.
Brilliant post thanks.
In addition, we performed training differently. Squadrons away from the heat would have many trainees and a few experienced pilots; this allowed trainees to learn in a safer environment. As they gained experience they were moved (generally south) to areas that were under more threat. Squadrons in the hot areas would have few green trainees and many more experienced pilots.
Sadly, I cannot remember where I read this ...
I knoiw one always worries about spies, but haven’t I heard somewhere that while, even in 1940, we were receiving intelligence from occupied Europe the number of German spies in UK was low, and further what they sent back was of poor quality.
Well don't forget Hugh Dowding as well. Leigh Mallory organised a coup d'etat after the BoB getting rid of both of them in favour of the 'big wing' concept. Dowding and Park couldn't defend themselves as many of the people in the enquiry weren't 'in the know' about Ultra (Bletchley was decoding the Luftwaffe messages by breakfast).
@carryonkeith: When Brexit fails, remember it'll have been the fault of those who voted Remain & the Civil Service. So don't blame Brexiteers' genius idea.
or it could be the crappy Remain campaign couldnt convince a bunch of thickies
I mean what does that say about them ?
Is says we were optomists and we couldn't believe the voters couldn't be that stupid
Additional factoid about Operation Sealion. It was by far the largest German operation of WW2 in terms of men, materials, cost and prep effort. Larger even than Barabarossa. They just never got to execute it. In fact the drain it imposed upon the Germans was a significant reason for the delay in launching Barbarossa a year later. A year the Russians made use of.
Have you a link to the proposition that Sealion delayed Barbarossa? Not read anything like that myself. Since Sealion 'cost' nothing in terms of landforces & related materiel, and afaicr the Luftwaffe was actually larger by the beginning of 1941 than it was at the start of the BoB, I find it hard to believe.
Should be banned from driving for ten years, or at least until she can prove she has a brain.
I’d seriously worry about using her services, givn her ability to judge. Or, more to the point, I’d make strenuous efforts to prevent my wife, daughter orgirl friend (delete as appropriate) doing so.
What force or guile could not subdue, Thro' many warlike ages, Is wrought now by a coward few, For hireling traitor's wages. The English steel we could disdain, Secure in valour's station; But English gold has been our bane - Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
He doesn't specifically say he's *taking* bets against Marine le Pen, but I thought I'd mention it in case pbers want to give him a try.
Usual betting-with-pundits rules apply: Don't tell them about odds unless they bring them up. Start with "I bet Marine le Pen loses" and see if you can get evens.
Suppose there is 'hard Brexit'. It either works, or doesn't, in broad terms. If it works, stamping her foot and demanding another independence vote looks blatantly self-interested. If it doesn't, how much worse would the economic aftermath of Scottish independence from the UK look, given they do so much trade 'with us' (as it would then be) and would need to change their currency (*and* be outside the EU as well).
(Snip) The strategy was to survive and still be around to screw up a potential German invasion (Operation Sealion). He very very deliberately only fed in enough opposition each day to frustrate German raids but without letting RAF casualty rates get too high. He was under tremendous pressure from some of his more gung-ho colleagues (such as Leigh-Mallory) to put more planes in the air and make a big fight of it - which would have led to an early exit and defeat. The Germans on the other hand played their strategy abysmally. It all came to a head on Sep 15th 1940 'Eagle Day'. Goering wanted a final push to deliver a coup de grace to the RAF. Park sensed this and for the first time in nearly 3 months of bitter attritional fighting ordered an all out effort - even requesting additional squadrons from outside 11 Group - flooding the skies of southern England with fighters for the first time. The RAF did a lot of material damage that day, but not as much as you might expect. Much more importantly, they inflicted a crushing psychological blow to the Luftwaffe which simply could not believe the vast numbers of RAF fighters in the sky that day. That day the Luftwaffe realised it could not win, their own casualty rates becoming critical. Game set and match to Park. A brilliant and patient strategist who was also top notch at tactics.
Brilliant post thanks.
In addition, we performed training differently. Squadrons away from the heat would have many trainees and a few experienced pilots; this allowed trainees to learn in a safer environment. As they gained experience they were moved (generally south) to areas that were under more threat. Squadrons in the hot areas would have few green trainees and many more experienced pilots.
Sadly, I cannot remember where I read this ...
I knoiw one always worries about spies, but haven’t I heard somewhere that while, even in 1940, we were receiving intelligence from occupied Europe the number of German spies in UK was low, and further what they sent back was of poor quality.
Well don't forget Hugh Dowding as well. Leigh Mallory organised a coup d'etat after the BoB getting rid of both of them in favour of the 'big wing' concept. Dowding and Park couldn't defend themselves as many of the people in the enquiry weren't 'in the know' about Ultra (Bletchley was decoding the Luftwaffe messages by breakfast).
Wikipedia says, and I’ve read this elsewhere, too, that neither Dowding nor Park were’politicians’ and simply weren’t up to the job of dealing with Leigh-Mallory’s machinations.
I think it's entirely possible that the CDU ends up on 40%, but with whom can they dance?
SPD + Linke + Greens will not have a majority FDP on their own won't be enough The (new) AfD would not be acceptable The SPD will not go into coalition with the CDU again
The only remotely stable coalition would be CDU + FDP + Greens.
Think of it as a war, and consider Von Moltke's splendid words
"The tactical result of an engagement forms the base for new strategic decisions because victory or defeat in a battle changes the situation to such a degree that no human acumen is able to see beyond the first battle. In this sense one should understand Napoleon's saying: "I have never had a plan of operations."
Therefore no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force."
It's such a fluid situation that it isn't plannable beyond the opening gambit. We'll be fine though.
I would feel more confident in Von Moltke's splendid words if there had ever been a "plan of operations" that could fail on first contact with hostile forces or if any "strategic decisions" new or old were ever likely to transpire. I don't think Von Moltke recommends dispensing with plans or strategy entirely because you might not like what they entail.
The plan for Brexit is clear, gain control of UK borders and get some sort of trade deal with the EU. How far that us achievable is another matter and will be the focus of the negotiations
I suppose thatf ill-will.
chortle
the implication that somehow Remain had a plan for staying in is just too funny for words
our in "plan" has been to ignore the direction the EU27 are heading , get ourselves pulled along without any understanding of what it all means, bitch and gripe at the edges and then cave in to the latest set of demands while calling it "influence" or denying it actually means what it says on the tin.
there never has been a Remain strategy but you seem quite happy with that.
Your usual deflection, Alan. If we were Remaining that might be a valid objection (although I don't think it is - our plan would be to be signed up to whatever the EU is. Whether that's acceptable is another matter, but it is a coherent plan). But we're Leaving and where we go now is all that matters.
No deflection at all
I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency of demanding an instant "plan" for Europe now when for the last three decades we haven't had one .
Maybe it's going to take Brexit to force us to face up to what we actually want as a country
How do voting rights work in Germany? Just wondering if the 2m or so who have arrived in Merkel's flood can vote in federal elections. I'd guess not, but just wondering. If they do have voting rights, that's a lot of potential votes.
@carryonkeith: When Brexit fails, remember it'll have been the fault of those who voted Remain & the Civil Service. So don't blame Brexiteers' genius idea.
or it could be the crappy Remain campaign couldnt convince a bunch of thickies
I mean what does that say about them ?
Is says we were optomists and we couldn't believe the voters couldn't be that stupid
Some might argue they did take voters to be that stupid.
I mean come on, when the treasury weighed in and talks of punishment beatings err emergency budgets if we dared leave.
Yet the "thickos" didn't believe them
Turns out the thickos were right and it really was all so much shit wasn't it.
Cameron and Osborne took the people for mugs and paid the price.
Comments
We're still overdue a downturn - I also recall Robert and myself being quite pessimistic about the timing of the referendum. That said, the immediate blow to confidence was clearly overstated.
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/david-cameron-and-george-osborne-brexit-would-put-our-economy-in/
After a decade of GDP predictions which were higher than what actually happened (thus suiting the purposes of governments) we get a prediction in which GDP does worse than what actually happened. And by an amazing coincidence that prediction for a recession is also what suited the government's purposes.
And yet we're told not to question the 'expertise' and 'neutrality' of the Sir Humphreys - or as its the Treasury in this case the Sir Franks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gordon
As one example. They all show the same thing. The UK is Germany's 3rd biggest export market behind France and the USA but ahead of china.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yosAVMB47-Y
Makes no sense. Smacks of them not wanting to talk about it because they know the shitshow it will be and they would prefer not to be around when it all hits the fan. Is it a shitshow? Will it hit the fan? Who knows - but not to want to discuss it on PB is bizarre.
Napoleon presumably therefore had no plan of operations when he invaded Russia. That could explain the catastrophic results.
A. Those who will sit opposite us. A Mr Cameron tried that one last time and it didn't work out too well.
B. Those, ostensibly on our own side, who would rather there were no negotiations at all and who we know will try to frustrate the whole process, so that it is seen to either fail or more preferably not begin.
Phillip
Pahahahahah absolutely brilliant ... #FindDyke https://t.co/2AKFT7CGNx
The strategy was to survive and still be around to screw up a potential German invasion (Operation Sealion). He very very deliberately only fed in enough opposition each day to frustrate German raids but without letting RAF casualty rates get too high. He was under tremendous pressure from some of his more gung-ho colleagues (such as Leigh-Mallory) to put more planes in the air and make a big fight of it - which would have led to an early exit and defeat. The Germans on the other hand played their strategy abysmally. Didn't do nearly enough damage to radar stations (which made the RAF effort massively more efficient). Bombed London before they'd killed the RAF. They thought they were getting ahead when they weren't. They were fighting tactically.
It all came to a head on Sep 15th 1940 'Eagle Day'. Goering wanted a final push to deliver a coup de grace to the RAF. Park sensed this and for the first time in nearly 3 months of bitter attritional fighting ordered an all out effort - even requesting additional squadrons from outside 11 Group - flooding the skies of southern England with fighters for the first time. The RAF did a lot of material damage that day, but not as much as you might expect. Much more importantly, they inflicted a crushing psychological blow to the Luftwaffe which simply could not believe the vast numbers of RAF fighters in the sky that day. That day the Luftwaffe realised it could not win, their own casualty rates becoming critical. Game set and match to Park. A brilliant and patient strategist who was also top notch at tactics.
At the moment the government is in consultation mode, taking industry input. After that presumably a strategy will emerge. The civil service, meanwhile, is miles from being properly staffed up to execute any strategy as it stands today and, with the civil service timescales being what they are, I have my doubts as to whether they will be ready come end-March and A50. If there is that strategy by then. It is a formidable task and I wish TMay had said she would trigger in a year to give us more time to understand, sector by sector, industry by industry, the optimal route.
Now, my main grip with Tezza and her no running commentary is that if she had said something resembling the paragraph above - it's a huge task, we are approaching it methodically, we will keep you updated as we ourselves gain more understanding of our priorities, etc - then I would have had a tremendous respect for her. Instead, and perhaps this is the law of politics, she was forced to say or imply that the government has a handle on it all already but don't want to tell us what they are thinking. Could another PM have been more candid? Not sure. Does it serve her well not to be candid? Nope.
We are going to Brexit but we haven't even started to debate what we want from it and how we are going to achieve our objectives. I doubt we ever will. What we will get is reaction to events and a lot of ill-will.
I think, if you mean yesterday's list, there was a caveat about it being PMs who had won an election.
What I am finding a little tedious, 6 months on, is the constant refighting of the merits of a decision already taken. Are we still going to be arguing that Hillary really won in 4 months time? And what exactly could that achieve?
Those remainers who accept the decision (such as @foxinsox) has been taken but argue for a softer Brexit to minimise the impact of a decision they did not agree with have valid points to make. I think it would be idiotic, notwithstanding the current growth, not to appreciate and accept that Brexit will have a short term impact on this country and that it makes sense to mitigate that so far as possible. Uncertainty is rarely good for business. But those who seek to twist every piece of news into a highly contrived "I told you so" are not only wrong but tedious and irrelevant.
I recently read somewhere - it may have been on here, but I don't think it was - that the Luftwaffe's intelligence was way off. They knew roughly the number of squadrons we had, as we did theirs. But they were taking squadrons as being planes, when in reality people matter as much. The Germans treated a squadron as being a full number of pilots, whereas each of our squadrons had extras - pilots who were ill, injured, on leave, in training, etc, etc. Therefore the Germans were not reducing our pilots as much as they expected.
A fact made worse by the fact we were fighting over our ground: RAF pilots shot down over the UK who survived could soon go back into combat; German pilots shot down over the UK were generally out of the game.
In addition, we performed training differently. Squadrons away from the heat would have many trainees and a few experienced pilots; this allowed trainees to learn in a safer environment. As they gained experience they were moved (generally south) to areas that were under more threat. Squadrons in the hot areas would have few green trainees and many more experienced pilots.
Sadly, I cannot remember where I read this ...
the implication that somehow Remain had a plan for staying in is just too funny for words
our in "plan" has been to ignore the direction the EU27 are heading , get ourselves pulled along without any understanding of what it all means, bitch and gripe at the edges and then cave in to the latest set of demands while calling it "influence" or denying it actually means what it says on the tin.
there never has been a Remain strategy but you seem quite happy with that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38523368
"Access to single market 'not on sale'" says Jonathan Faull..
One of the men who negotiated Cameron's deal, on behalf of the EU.
My thinking in that situation is it has to be a never Trumper.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/06/beautician-jailed-paying-stranger-300-take-speeding-points-revealed/
https://youtu.be/NnxjZ-aFkjs
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4093006/The-truth-Britain-roll-Brexit-emerged-robust-economy-industrialised-world-writes-ALEX-BRUMMER.html
My priorities are, above all, being out, being free of the CJE, having a situation where the EU makes as little of our law as is consistent with a working trade relationship and having better control of immigration.
There are a whole range of areas where I think co-operation would be a good thing but I am relaxed about whether this happens in the Brexit timetable or not. The one I find most difficult to judge is membership of the customs union. I really liked the idea floated yesterday where we were in for the purposes of intra-EU trade (including imports re-exported to the continent) but out for other purposes. If that were indeed possible it would be ideal.
https://twitter.com/theeconomist/status/817308103259590656
Exclusive: Peers will not sabotage Brexit, Lord Speaker tells Theresa May ahead of Supreme Court ruling
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/05/exclusive-peers-will-not-sabotage-brexit-lord-speaker-tells/
I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency of demanding an instant "plan" for Europe now when for the last three decades we haven't had one .
Maybe it's going to take Brexit to force us to face up to what we actually want as a country
Anyway, it's academic. Hard Brexit vs soft Brexit is not a choice for the UK to make alone. As you say, it's a chimera. The choice, as an erstwhile ambassador to the EU suggested, is between managed and orderly departure compared to a disorderly, chaotic exit.
SpaceX did a hold-down firing of a Falcon 9 yesterday. Things are looking good for the return-to-flight launch within a week, if the FAA allow them.
And in other news: aliens found!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzEtlaAUM2k
I mean what does that say about them ?
we end up subsumed in the Superstate by osmosis and the electorate dont get a say
They'll be gagging for a deal from us...
The UK is thriving "despite" being a member of the EU...
Doesn't quite fit the Brexiteers' narrative though.
https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/817135533675646976
Thro' many warlike ages,
Is wrought now by a coward few,
For hireling traitor's wages.
The English steel we could disdain,
Secure in valour's station;
But English gold has been our bane -
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
https://twitter.com/telepolitics/status/817312779031834624
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/01/brexit-lessons-and-why-im-not-betting-against-marine-le-pen.html
He doesn't specifically say he's *taking* bets against Marine le Pen, but I thought I'd mention it in case pbers want to give him a try.
Usual betting-with-pundits rules apply: Don't tell them about odds unless they bring them up. Start with "I bet Marine le Pen loses" and see if you can get evens.
she screwed up the coalition last time
Suppose there is 'hard Brexit'. It either works, or doesn't, in broad terms. If it works, stamping her foot and demanding another independence vote looks blatantly self-interested. If it doesn't, how much worse would the economic aftermath of Scottish independence from the UK look, given they do so much trade 'with us' (as it would then be) and would need to change their currency (*and* be outside the EU as well).
SPD + Linke + Greens will not have a majority
FDP on their own won't be enough
The (new) AfD would not be acceptable
The SPD will not go into coalition with the CDU again
The only remotely stable coalition would be CDU + FDP + Greens.
There's a good reason they call that position "Silly Point". You've got to be silly to stand there, and you get hit at point blank range!
Given german polls consistently underreport AfD support, the question is will they overtake the SPD which is now down to 20% ?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarz-grüne_Koalition
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/817312117535756288
I mean come on, when the treasury weighed in and talks of punishment beatings err emergency budgets if we dared leave.
Yet the "thickos" didn't believe them
Turns out the thickos were right and it really was all so much shit wasn't it.
Cameron and Osborne took the people for mugs and paid the price.
Who were the idiots then?
Oh well, never mind