So, are we now required to back the US in all matters of foreign policy, or there'll be consequences?
I wouldn't worry, but not for the reasons you might suppose. I vividly recall a withering conversation with a senior at one of the US TLAs. We have no power projection worthy of the name. Our Navy is pitiful, as is our heavy lift capability. Our armed forces lost their rep in Basra. The US (or rather, a decent sized chunk of their IndMil complex sees the Pacific as the defining region for 21st century conflict; we would struggle to deploy any forces outside of the Med.
Our diplomatic interests are mostly aligned with the US; we have some soft power that is still useful. Our utility to the Yanks is like that of Israel; a stick to beat others with .
If that is the case - it sounds like exaggeration to me - then we really aren't getting value for money from a £35 billion a year defense spend, the fifth largest in the world.
It's comparative. US military spend dwarfs ours (and everybody else) and we have huge procurement inefficiencies due to our attempts to preserve a sovereign capability. We would get far more bang for our buck if we bought elsewhere; but that's very difficult politically.
Is that total nonsense? If Wilders means you can't show blonde hair on ANY Dutch streets, then yeah, it's shite.
But if he is saying there are SOME Dutch streets where native women have to dress modestly, even cover their hair, then he could be right. Recall that French news report from a couple of weeks ago, when a white Frenchwoman in a Muslim Lyon suburb said she no longer wore skirts, or any make up, and kept her head down.
The lefty denial of all this will lead to someone like Wilders winning power eventually. It is inevitable.
Indeed. I also wonder if the 'wet as an ocean' stance will come back to bite the SNP in particular - given they're the only mainstream party with such views in power nowadays?
My aunt - who has blonde hair - told me last year that when she visited Brussels she felt very uncomfortable when walking through part of the city. But I guess it's not an issue if you stay away from the ghettos.
My blonde daughter said the same about Cuba. Ogled by all the men. Maybe not always based on a specific religion? I suspect blondes are a feature and gawped at anywhere they are rare and non indigenous.
Is that total nonsense? If Wilders means you can't show blonde hair on ANY Dutch streets, then yeah, it's shite.
But if he is saying there are SOME Dutch streets where native women have to dress modestly, even cover their hair, then he could be right. Recall that French news report from a couple of weeks ago, when a white Frenchwoman in a Muslim Lyon suburb said she no longer wore skirts, or any make up, and kept her head down.
The lefty denial of all this will lead to someone like Wilders winning power eventually. It is inevitable.
Indeed. I also wonder if the 'wet as an ocean' stance will come back to bite the SNP in particular - given they're the only mainstream party with such views in power nowadays?
This should be a no-brainer, we should offer Oz, NZ and maybe Canada Free Movement in toto.
They would not want that - they would be overrun with Brits.
If Aussies want free movement to London there has to be free movement of Brits to Australia in return
Yes, that was my point. There are more of us than them and there are more of us that would want to live there permanently than there are them who would want to emigrate here permanently. Same applies to both NZ and Canada, too.
It's too far away for it to be an issue. They're not gonna be flooded with Brits. And Aussies REALLY want free movement to London.
I don't think it will fly just because no one will be bold enough, but it would work perfectly well.
Yet Southam supports unlimited free movement to Britain but thinks Aus, Can and NZ would be 'overrun with Brits'.
And isn't 'overrun' an interesting word.
I wonder what middle class lefties would have accused anyone in Britain of being if they had said their communities were being 'overrun' with immigrants.
Most of Australia is desert, most of Canada is forest, lake and tundra. New Zealand is a relatively poor country that struggles to support its current population. My use of the term overrun was to convey the attitude there would be in those countries at the thought of free movement with the UK. I am sorry you are such a snowflake.
You're exposed Southam as a hypocrite.
The casual derogatory comment "they would be overrun with Brits" is there for all to see. Trying to explain it away isn't going to work.
Unlimited immigration to Britain it seems is good while migration of Brits to Aus, Can and NZ would be bad for the locals.
That Brits emigrating to Aus, Can and NZ would be moving to countries with highly similar cultural and economic features while the unlimited immigration to Britain which you support is from far more dissimilar countries merely highlights your hypocrisy.
And I suspect there is far more available land for development in Aus, Can and NZ than there is in Britain. IIRC SeanT wrote about a stretch of Victoria 'half the size of England with only the population of Southampton'.
My aunt - who has blonde hair - told me last year that when she visited Brussels she felt very uncomfortable when walking through part of the city. But I guess it's not an issue if you stay away from the ghettos.
My blonde daughter said the same about Cuba. Ogled by all the men. Maybe not always based on a specific religion? I suspect blondes are a feature and gawped at anywhere they are rare and non indigenous.
That's a fair point. It's a fine line between complementing a lady on her appearance and giving her undue attention. But in Brussels the issue isn't about the men giving western dressed women attention, it's the fact that the local women are covered from head to toe.
My aunt - who has blonde hair - told me last year that when she visited Brussels she felt very uncomfortable when walking through part of the city. But I guess it's not an issue if you stay away from the ghettos.
My Uncle and Aunt live in Birmingham - there are areas where you don't go, if you are not from the correct ethnic group, late at night. A Pakistani going through the Somali area on foot would not be a good plan, for example.
Interestingly, being elderly and white gives you a certain immunity to this, apparently.
My aunt - who has blonde hair - told me last year that when she visited Brussels she felt very uncomfortable when walking through part of the city. But I guess it's not an issue if you stay away from the ghettos.
It odd that so many on the left fail to see the similarity between statements suggesting that women should dress conservatively to reduce the risk of being raped in some areas (which is clearly disgraceful) and women not feeling comfortable, and in the French case being intimidated and threatened for walking in some streets in major cities in Europe with blonde hair or revealing clothing (which seems to be perfectly acceptable, or at least not worthy of comment).
Following my last post, It's really striking how well Bill Clinton performed with blue collar White voters, twenty years ago, in rural/small town/medium town America, compared with his wife's performance in 2016. He won Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Iowa by double-digit margins. He also carried Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona, Ohio. All of those now look out of reach or the Democrats, apart from Arizona and Pennsylvania.
All that the Democrats have gained in return is Virginia.
They have also gained Colorado which Dole carried in 1996, Nevada and New Mexico and New Hampshire were won by George W Bush at least once but Hillary won them
So, are we now required to back the US in all matters of foreign policy, or there'll be consequences?
I wouldn't worry, but not for the reasons you might suppose. I vividly recall a withering conversation with a senior at one of the US TLAs. We have no power projection worthy of the name. Our Navy is pitiful, as is our heavy lift capability. Our armed forces lost their rep in Basra. The US (or rather, a decent sized chunk of their IndMil complex sees the Pacific as the defining region for 21st century conflict; we would struggle to deploy any forces outside of the Med.
Our diplomatic interests are mostly aligned with the US; we have some soft power that is still useful. Our utility to the Yanks is like that of Israel; a stick to beat others with .
If that is the case - it sounds like exaggeration to me - then we really aren't getting value for money from a £35 billion a year defense spend, the fifth largest in the world.
An interesting metric is the US Marine Corps budget. Which is the same as the UK defense budget, pretty much. And yes, the marines do get alot of help from the rest of the US armed forces. But still... And no, it is not the cost of the nuclear deterrent that is the issue...
The problem is all the "we need our own special version of X" mentality in the MOD. IF we simply said - Tanks - Israeli Merkavas, Helicopters - American built Apaches, Rifles - FN2000 etc etc we would get much much more for our buck. Even if we built them here under license for the jobs.
The purchase of the P-8s and the RC-135 aircraft is showing some promise in that direction. The savagery with which "no special features" has been enforced is a wonder to behold.
So, are we now required to back the US in all matters of foreign policy, or there'll be consequences?
I wouldn't worry, but not for the reasons you might suppose. I vividly recall a withering conversation with a senior at one of the US TLAs. We have no power projection worthy of the name. Our Navy is pitiful, as is our heavy lift capability. Our armed forces lost their rep in Basra. The US (or rather, a decent sized chunk of their IndMil complex sees the Pacific as the defining region for 21st century conflict; we would struggle to deploy any forces outside of the Med.
Our diplomatic interests are mostly aligned with the US; we have some soft power that is still useful. Our utility to the Yanks is like that of Israel; a stick to beat others with .
If that is the case - it sounds like exaggeration to me - then we really aren't getting value for money from a £35 billion a year defense spend, the fifth largest in the world.
I rather suspect that the British military will soon consist of:
1) Ceremonial units for the tourists 2) Some expensive equipment which either doesn't work and/or has nobody available to use it 3) Trident 4) Lots of Generals, Admirals and Air Marshals (with associated lackeys)
This should be a no-brainer, we should offer Oz, NZ and maybe Canada Free Movement in toto.
They would not want that - they would be overrun with Brits.
If Aussies want free movement to London there has to be free movement of Brits to Australia in return
The Australian politician that seriously suggested FoM for UK citizens would find his career was over for good within 15 minutes. Australia has no desire to import coffin dodgers, NEETs and taxi drivers from South Yorkshire with a surfeit of Qs in their surnames.
So there will be no free movement to London then, most likely there will be a simplification of visa arrangements on both sides
Every puff of wind you extract from the airflow to turn into power changes the eco system. The power will do work and create heat to be dissipated into the atmosphere. The wind is stolen from the sea or land and less moisture evaporates so there is less natural cooling and a change to cloud formation. There is no such thing as free energy, and use of wind has the potential to change climate in a significant way. Every joule of solar power you extract well produce work and heat for mankind. Also the amount of natural heat from the sun that is radiated back into space will diminish. It isn't free. Capture and use of all energy sources have the potential to alter climate, even the bizarrely named green energies.
Sorry, but this nonsense. All the energy arriving from the sun ends up being radiated away again in the end. Energy "stolen" from the wind is eventually radiated in the form of heat from our houses and appliances (rather than from the general terrain). All we're doing with wind farms is diverting some of the energy for useful purposes.
My aunt - who has blonde hair - told me last year that when she visited Brussels she felt very uncomfortable when walking through part of the city. But I guess it's not an issue if you stay away from the ghettos.
My blonde daughter said the same about Cuba. Ogled by all the men. Maybe not always based on a specific religion? I suspect blondes are a feature and gawped at anywhere they are rare and non indigenous.
It's culture - remember Cuba (like most of the East Block countries in Europe) is culturally stuck in about 1950. No decades of anti-sexism and anti-racism.
I've lost count of the number of pbERs who have said they would love to see such an outcome happening because it'll wind up lefties. It is just juvenile stuff.
As said, I'd love AGW to be wrong. I'd love it if austerity worked, and the UK was now thriving with a properly funded NHS. I would love to walk through Oxford and not see the bodies, predominantly young people, sleeping homeless, or the proliferation of food banks...I'd love to see the UK continue to be an influential player in global institutions because fundamentally I think we bring a unique perspective....
I like to be proved wrong...on Brexit, Trump, the EU, AGW, ISISS....
But I fundamentally know that it has been a liberal voice that has driven rights for LBTG, ethnicities, women, children, environmental causes...
You'd rather people went hungry than we had food banks? Well, it's a view....clearly, one shared by the last Labour Govt., who just couldn't countenance the flak of people going "to food banks to collect stuff on its "use by" date. There are many rocks you can throw at this Govt., but bemoaning the rise in people getting fed by food banks is just crass.
I've never understood the opposition to food banks, from those who are usually all in favour of charity. Is it not a mark of a civilised society that we look after those not as fortunate as ourselves?
I've lost count of the number of pbERs who have said they would love to see such an outcome happening because it'll wind up lefties. It is just juvenile stuff.
As said, I'd love AGW to be wrong. I'd love it if austerity worked, and the UK was now thriving with a properly funded NHS. I would love to walk through Oxford and not see the bodies, predominantly young people, sleeping homeless, or the proliferation of food banks...I'd love to see the UK continue to be an influential player in global institutions because fundamentally I think we bring a unique perspective....
I like to be proved wrong...on Brexit, Trump, the EU, AGW, ISISS....
But I fundamentally know that it has been a liberal voice that has driven rights for LBTG, ethnicities, women, children, environmental causes...
I'm really worried about the UK's position post-Brexit. I'm praying that we don't find ourselves isolated. It's in everybody's best interest that May succeeds.
On your last point: I'm with you there. Did you hear about the WH removing its page on LGBT rights after Trump's inauguration?
You realise that itwas automatic digital archiving process? it's now on obamawhitehouse.archive.gov Trump's is empty-ish.
This should be a no-brainer, we should offer Oz, NZ and maybe Canada Free Movement in toto.
They would not want that - they would be overrun with Brits.
If Aussies want free movement to London there has to be free movement of Brits to Australia in return
Yes, that was my point. There are more of us than them and there are more of us that would want to live there permanently than there are them who would want to emigrate here permanently. Same applies to both NZ and Canada, too.
It's too far away for it to be an issue. They're not gonna be flooded with Brits. And Aussies REALLY want free movement to London.
I don't think it will fly just because no one will be bold enough, but it would work perfectly well.
Population dens
I wonder what middle class lefties would have accused anyone in Britain of being if they had said their communities were being 'overrun' with immigrants.
Most of Australia is desert, most ofa snowflake.
You're exposed Southam as a hypocrite.
The casual derogatory comment "they would be overrun with Brits" is there for all to see. Trying to explain it away isn't going to work.
Unlimited immigration to Britain it seems is good while migration of Brits to Aus, Can and NZ would be bad for the locals.
That Brits emigrating to Aus, Can and NZ would be moving to countries with highly similar cultural and economic features while the unlimited immigration to Britain which you support is from far more dissimilar countries merely highlights your hypocrisy.
And I suspect there is far more available land for development in Aus, Can and NZ than there is in Britain. IIRC SeanT wrote about a stretch of Victoria 'half the size of England with only the population of Southampton'.
Yup Australia is so big and empty even though it is 80% desert they've still got vast tracts of temperate and/or fertile land with basically no people. Check the Atherton Tablelands in Queensland. No one there.
Margaret River is another area. Tasmania. Gippsland Victoria is the area you recall.
If Australia made a strategic decision to accelerate becoming a more significant power, liberalising migration from the UK under cover of a trade deal could make a lot of sense for them.
So, are we now required to back the US in all matters of foreign policy, or there'll be consequences?
I wouldn't worry, but not for the reasons you might suppose. I vividly recall a withering conversation with a senior at one of the US TLAs. We have no power projection worthy of the name. Our Navy is pitiful, as is our heavy lift capability. Our armed forces lost their rep in Basra. The US (or rather, a decent sized chunk of their IndMil complex sees the Pacific as the defining region for 21st century conflict; we would struggle to deploy any forces outside of the Med.
Our diplomatic interests are mostly aligned with the US; we have some soft power that is still useful. Our utility to the Yanks is like that of Israel; a stick to beat others with .
The UK will almost never be fighting alone though, unlike the U.S. may, except against Argentina over the Falklands and even that is unlikely with Kirchner gone
BTW...WTF do people always mention Andy Burnham as the only alternative? Starmer, Clive Lewis, Dan Jarvis, Emily Thornberry, Hilary Benn...there are a number of potentially strong leaders who would put up a much better fight.
Note to Nick....leadership matters, ratings matter, perception matters. David Miliband would now be PM and Brexit would never have happened in an alternative universe.
Not looking for badges of honour, you know, merely saying what I think as one bit of the kaleidoscope of views that makes up PB. But a relevant response is that none of the people you mention have actually stood for the leadership except David M, who did so after infinite vacillation. I'm not prepared even to consider supporting anyone who hasn't actually had the nerve to stand - if you aren't prepared to stand unless you expect to win, you lack something essential in leadership. Andy B has at least had a go. And that applies to some of the armchair pundits here too - how many actually bother to stand for election to promote the views that they urge on the rest of us?
On a less contentious note, this piece on the decline of traditional statistics and polling is interesting regardless of our political persuasion:
I don't really understand what the point is of being loyal to someone who is wrecking your party. I agree that it would have been far better had the PLP nominated someone who was potential PM material last year. The contrast with the Tories in 1990 is clear enough, both in that Heseltine stood, despite knowing that he was wrecking his status as heir apparent in doing so, because he knew that his party would be ungovernable after Howe's speech if Thatcher wasn't desposed and that he was the only one who could bring that about, but also in that Thatcher was ultimately prepared to go in the interests of her party once her position became untenable (and so preventing Heseltine from winning).
Benn or Starmer or Jarvis should have stood last time, and *must* stand next time if they are to save Labour. But Corbyn should have gone after his Shadow Cabinet resigned en masse, and without question, after the PLP overwhelmingly no confidenced him.
By the way, I think you're unfair on D Miliband. He stood exactly when he meant to, having behaved exactly in line with the Labour's tradition you applaud, of sticking by his leader through thick and thin. (Though not volunteering for a hospital pass presumably had something to do with it too). It was his campaign rather than his record which lost him the election.
So, are we now required to back the US in all matters of foreign policy, or there'll be consequences?
I wouldn't worry, but not for the reasons you might suppose. I vividly recall a withering conversation with a senior at one of the US TLAs. We have no power projection worthy of the name. Our Navy is pitiful, as is our heavy lift capability. Our armed forces lost their rep in Basra. The US (or rather, a decent sized chunk of their IndMil complex sees the Pacific as the defining region for 21st century conflict; we would struggle to deploy any forces outside of the Med.
Our diplomatic interests are mostly aligned with the US; we have some soft power that is still useful. Our utility to the Yanks is like that of Israel; a stick to beat others with .
The UK will almost never be fighting alone though, unlike the U.S. may, except against Argentina over the Falklands and even that is unlikely with Kirchner gone
I normally prefer to play Tigger to Southam's Eeyore, but in this case, I can't. We have no sovereign military capability in (say) the 1980s sense. That said, we could still beat the shit out of any EU country, with the possible exception of the Frogs.
What all the European countries lack is the logistics & production capabilities for any kind of prolonged medium to high intensity conflict. We're all going to have to row back from that a tad, particularly if Trump decides to go with a combination of the Munroe doctrine and a continued pivot to the Pacific.
The problem is all the "we need our own special version of X" mentality in the MOD. IF we simply said - Tanks - Israeli Merkavas, Helicopters - American built Apaches, Rifles - FN2000 etc etc we would get much much more for our buck. Even if we built them here under license for the jobs.
The purchase of the P-8s and the RC-135 aircraft is showing some promise in that direction. The savagery with which "no special features" has been enforced is a wonder to behold.
My aunt - who has blonde hair - told me last year that when she visited Brussels she felt very uncomfortable when walking through part of the city. But I guess it's not an issue if you stay away from the ghettos.
My Uncle and Aunt live in Birmingham - there are areas where you don't go, if you are not from the correct ethnic group, late at night. A Pakistani going through the Somali area on foot would not be a good plan, for example.
Interestingly, being elderly and white gives you a certain immunity to this, apparently.
I have never experinced anything like this in North west london although I'm sure in parts in parts of east London there is a problem. I don't know what you do about segregation without huge goverment intervention on a communist level.
F1: apparently Ferrari could lose its financially privileged position in F1, according to Liberty (new owners of the sport). Would be a good move, but I'll believe it when I see it.
So, are we now required to back the US in all matters of foreign policy, or there'll be consequences?
I wouldn't worry, but not for the reasons you might suppose. I vividly recall a withering conversation with a senior at one of the US TLAs. We have no power projection worthy of the name. Our Navy is pitiful, as is our heavy lift capability. Our armed forces lost their rep in Basra. The US (or rather, a decent sized chunk of their IndMil complex sees the Pacific as the defining region for 21st century conflict; we would struggle to deploy any forces outside of the Med.
Our diplomatic interests are mostly aligned with the US; we have some soft power that is still useful. Our utility to the Yanks is like that of Israel; a stick to beat others with .
If that is the case - it sounds like exaggeration to me - then we really aren't getting value for money from a £35 billion a year defense spend, the fifth largest in the world.
An interesting metric is the US Marine Corps budget. Which is the same as the UK defense budget, pretty much. And yes, the marines do get alot of help from the rest of the US armed forces. But still... And no, it is not the cost of the nuclear deterrent that is the issue...
The problem is all the "we need our own special version of X" mentality in the MOD. IF we simply said - Tanks - Israeli Merkavas, Helicopters - American built Apaches, Rifles - FN2000 etc etc we would get much much more for our buck. Even if we built them here under license for the jobs.
The purchase of the P-8s and the RC-135 aircraft is showing some promise in that direction. The savagery with which "no special features" has been enforced is a wonder to behold.
Very good point on military procurement, something that the UK has finally woken up to.
One suspects that the US is about to get an almighty kick up the backside about the same issue, from the new Commander-in-Chief.
I like Alistair Appleton, hence I follow him on twitter, but is today's march against Trump really "what democracy looks like"? I'd say the inauguration was that
It's just a little bit bizarre. Wait the whole way through the year long presidential campaign until the guy is sworn in and places his backside in the presidential seat in the oval office - and THEN decide to have a march objecting to him ?!
What is this march supposed to achieve in any case except signal virtue, probably no one on it can vote against him, almost no one watching can vote against him, and pretty much no one watching it on TV can vote against him - and even those that can, now can't for four years!
The POTUS is usually seen as the "Leader of the Free World" and I guess millions of people around the globe are simply making it clear that he's not as far as they are concerned. I doubt there has ever been a President inaugurated that has been the less popular with the rest of the "free World"
The purchase of the P-8s and the RC-135 aircraft is showing some promise in that direction. The savagery with which "no special features" has been enforced is a wonder to behold.
Boeing got the new Apache order too. Protector is an upgraded Predator with a new name. So things are going in the right direction. It will be the 2020s though before this off-the-shelf approach to defence procurement really starts to pay dividends. I just hope that no future government reverses direction.
BTW...WTF do people always mention Andy Burnham as the only alternative? Starmer, Clive Lewis, Dan Jarvis, Emily Thornberry, Hilary Benn...there are a number of potentially strong leaders who would put up a much better fight.
Note to Nick....leadership matters, ratings matter, perception matters. David Miliband would now be PM and Brexit would never have happened in an alternative universe.
I don't really understand what the point is of being loyal to someone who is wrecking your party. I agree that it would have been far better had the PLP nominated someone who was potential PM material last year. The contrast with the Tories in 1990 is clear enough, both in that Heseltine stood, despite knowing that he was wrecking his status as heir apparent in doing so, because he knew that his party would be ungovernable after Howe's speech if Thatcher wasn't desposed and that he was the only one who could bring that about, but also in that Thatcher was ultimately prepared to go in the interests of her party once her position became untenable (and so preventing Heseltine from winning).
Benn or Starmer or Jarvis should have stood last time, and *must* stand next time if they are to save Labour. But Corbyn should have gone after his Shadow Cabinet resigned en masse, and without question, after the PLP overwhelmingly no confidenced him.
By the way, I think you're unfair on D Miliband. He stood exactly when he meant to, having behaved exactly in line with the Labour's tradition you applaud, of sticking by his leader through thick and thin. (Though not volunteering for a hospital pass presumably had something to do with it too). It was his campaign rather than his record which lost him the election.
Standing by a leader 'through thick and thin' is bonkers. Labour should have ditched Milliband , Brown and Foot before they led their parties to inevitable defeat. Moreover if the party is not prepared to act to save itself, it certainly does not deserve to be entrusted with running the country.
So, are we now required to back the US in all matters of foreign policy, or there'll be consequences?
I wouldn't worry, but not for the reasons you might suppose. I vividly recall a withering conversation with a senior at one of the US TLAs. We have no power projection worthy of the name. Our Navy is pitiful, as is our heavy lift capability. Our armed forces lost their rep in Basra. The US (or rather, a decent sized chunk of their IndMil complex sees the Pacific as the defining region for 21st century conflict; we would struggle to deploy any forces outside of the Med.
Our diplomatic interests are mostly aligned with the US; we have some soft power that is still useful. Our utility to the Yanks is like that of Israel; a stick to beat others with .
If that is the case - it sounds like exaggeration to me - then we really aren't getting value for money from a £35 billion a year defense spend, the fifth largest in the world.
I rather suspect that the British military will soon consist of:
1) Ceremonial units for the tourists 2) Some expensive equipment which either doesn't work and/or has nobody available to use it 3) Trident 4) Lots of Generals, Admirals and Air Marshals (with associated lackeys)
It's reminiscent of the last days of Rome. A powerful military establishment on paper, which struggles to field any significant force in the field.
I think we should all take a step back when China becomes the defender of free trade. What have we done when a country with huge human rights abuses and massive curtailments on freedom is seen as the vanguard of free trade.
That Germany are willing to get down in the mud with China shows they clearly value their trade higher than personal liberty.
Should we, as western democratic nations, be condoning quasi despotic regimes because it suits us economically?
Germany should take a long, hard look at itself in the mirror and decide what it values more. A few extra GDP points or ensuring personal liberty and freedom and democratic values.
Whether or not we like Trump, America voted for him. No one voted for Xi Xingping or the Communist party in China.
So, are we now required to back the US in all matters of foreign policy, or there'll be consequences?
I wouldn't worry, but not for the reasons you might suppose. I vividly recall a withering conversation with a senior at one of the US TLAs. We have no power projection worthy of the name. Our Navy is pitiful, as is our heavy lift capability. Our armed forces lost their rep in Basra. The US (or rather, a decent sized chunk of their IndMil complex sees the Pacific as the defining region for 21st century conflict; we would struggle to deploy any forces outside of the Med.
Our diplomatic interests are mostly aligned with the US; we have some soft power that is still useful. Our utility to the Yanks is like that of Israel; a stick to beat others with .
The UK will almost never be fighting alone though, unlike the U.S. may, except against Argentina over the Falklands and even that is unlikely with Kirchner gone
I normally prefer to play Tigger to Southam's Eeyore, but in this case, I can't. We have no sovereign military capability in (say) the 1980s sense. That said, we could still beat the shit out of any EU country, with the possible exception of the Frogs.
What all the European countries lack is the logistics & production capabilities for any kind of prolonged medium to high intensity conflict. We're all going to have to row back from that a tad, particularly if Trump decides to go with a combination of the Munroe doctrine and a continued pivot to the Pacific.
To be blunt as an island on the northern edge of Europe for defence purposes the only nations we would need to beat are other EU nations as we are now no longer a superpower but a medium sized power the only expeditions we would undertake to the Middle-East and the Pacific etc would be alongside the U.S. (the Falklands excepted of course). In terms of defence spending we already spend more than the European average and as you say only France really matches us so defence spending is really something the rest of Europe need to focus on rather than the U.K. especially with healthcare etc to fund
So, are we now required to back the US in all matters of foreign policy, or there'll be consequences?
I wouldn't worry, but not for the reasons you might suppose. I vividly recall a withering conversation with a senior at one of the US TLAs. We have no power projection worthy of the name. Our Navy is pitiful, as is our heavy lift capability. Our armed forces lost their rep in Basra. The US (or rather, a decent sized chunk of their IndMil complex sees the Pacific as the defining region for 21st century conflict; we would struggle to deploy any forces outside of the Med.
Our diplomatic interests are mostly aligned with the US; we have some soft power that is still useful. Our utility to the Yanks is like that of Israel; a stick to beat others with .
If that is the case - it sounds like exaggeration to me - then we really aren't getting value for money from a £35 billion a year defense spend, the fifth largest in the world.
I rather suspect that the British military will soon consist of:
1) Ceremonial units for the tourists 2) Some expensive equipment which either doesn't work and/or has nobody available to use it 3) Trident 4) Lots of Generals, Admirals and Air Marshals (with associated lackeys)
It's reminiscent of the last days of Rome. A powerful military establishment on paper, which struggles to field any significant force in the field.
If we're going to stop pissing about in the Middle East & Central Asia (as I devoutly hope), we can return to the simpler days of yore; armoured warfare on the North European plain. This is why Russia is such a convenient enemy for so many parties; it's preserving our 20th century military folkways . In fact, I'm sure I must still have some of my old board wargames up in the attic. Fulda Gap anyone?
My aunt - who has blonde hair - told me last year that when she visited Brussels she felt very uncomfortable when walking through part of the city. But I guess it's not an issue if you stay away from the ghettos.
My Uncle and Aunt live in Birmingham - there are areas where you don't go, if you are not from the correct ethnic group, late at night. A Pakistani going through the Somali area on foot would not be a good plan, for example.
Interestingly, being elderly and white gives you a certain immunity to this, apparently.
I have never experinced anything like this in North west london although I'm sure in parts in parts of east London there is a problem. I don't know what you do about segregation without huge goverment intervention on a communist level.
You start in the same way as say driving without a seatbelt, you try to make it socially unacceptable to the extent that people starts to object more vocally when it happens. That requires the government to have the courage to take on entrenched views in minority communities even if only in media campaigns, and more importantly they need to give the people that might speak out the confidence that such actions will not be treated by the more idiotic parts of Her Majesty's Constabulary as a hate crime!
F1: apparently Ferrari could lose its financially privileged position in F1, according to Liberty (new owners of the sport). Would be a good move, but I'll believe it when I see it.
Throwing so much cash at Ferrari, when smaller teams are struggling to even make the grid, has never made sense. Good on the new rights holders if their bluff is called.
But as you say we shall believe it when we see it.
The purchase of the P-8s and the RC-135 aircraft is showing some promise in that direction. The savagery with which "no special features" has been enforced is a wonder to behold.
Boeing got the new Apache order too. Protector is an upgraded Predator with a new name. So things are going in the right direction. It will be the 2020s though before this off-the-shelf approach to defence procurement really starts to pay dividends. I just hope that no future government reverses direction.
If we can only get the MOD to admit the Challenger II upgrade is a fail and we need to buy a foreign tank while we learn how to build them again...
Sorry! I loved my old SSI/Avalon Hill/Victory wargames back in the day. I still have a mostly unpunched 'Pacific War' propping up one end of my nearest bookcase .
I like Alistair Appleton, hence I follow him on twitter, but is today's march against Trump really "what democracy looks like"? I'd say the inauguration was that
It's just a little bit bizarre. Wait the whole way through the year long presidential campaign until the guy is sworn in and places his backside in the presidential seat in the oval office - and THEN decide to have a march objecting to him ?!
What is this march supposed to achieve in any case except signal virtue, probably no one on it can vote against him, almost no one watching can vote against him, and pretty much no one watching it on TV can vote against him - and even those that can, now can't for four years!
The POTUS is usually seen as the "Leader of the Free World" and I guess millions of people around the globe are simply making it clear that he's not as far as they are concerned. I doubt there has ever been a President inaugurated that has been the less popular with the rest of the "free World"
Possibly so. But if you are dealing with a mad and dangerous wild beast, which seems a fair analogy for Trump as seen by the protesters, the most stupid thing you can do is something which is guaranteed to annoy it but incapable of inflicting any serious harm on it. As Kissinger said to Jon Snow the other evening there is nothing more dangerous than a failed, imploding presidency; as Trump is there anyway, we have to hope things go smoothly for him.
Yes Hamon looks like the candidate to beat at the moment but in terms of the general election it will makes little difference, the latest polls show whichever one of the 3 wins will still come 5th and it will be Le Pen and Fillon contesting the run-off
Mr. Sandpit, I believe some other teams are (to a lesser extent) also financially privileged. If that can be tackled, then perhaps the nonsense of no race fee for Monaco can be challenged too.
The purchase of the P-8s and the RC-135 aircraft is showing some promise in that direction. The savagery with which "no special features" has been enforced is a wonder to behold.
Boeing got the new Apache order too. Protector is an upgraded Predator with a new name. So things are going in the right direction. It will be the 2020s though before this off-the-shelf approach to defence procurement really starts to pay dividends. I just hope that no future government reverses direction.
The big issue in some of these purchases was not spending billions on a "fill the gap" solution which ends up as all we can afford for years. Having the guts to wait until the new aircraft were actually in the air, and working, before we bought strictly off-the-shelf.
I think we should all take a step back when China becomes the defender of free trade. What have we done when a country with huge human rights abuses and massive curtailments on freedom is seen as the vanguard of free trade.
That Germany are willing to get down in the mud with China shows they clearly value their trade higher than personal liberty.
Should we, as western democratic nations, be condoning quasi despotic regimes because it suits us economically?
Germany should take a long, hard look at itself in the mirror and decide what it values more. A few extra GDP points or ensuring personal liberty and freedom and democratic values.
Whether or not we like Trump, America voted for him. No one voted for Xi Xingping or the Communist party in China.
Germany, if they are prepared to do it, is doing a fantastic job! We have a full blown nutcase in Washington DC now.
The US presidential election was hardly democratic asthey follow the Slobodan Milosevic rule: the candidate coming second wins.
Following my last post, It's really striking how well Bill Clinton performed with blue collar White voters, twenty years ago, in rural/small town/medium town America, compared with his wife's performance in 2016. He won Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Iowa by double-digit margins. He also carried Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona, Ohio. All of those now look out of reach or the Democrats, apart from Arizona and Pennsylvania.
All that the Democrats have gained in return is Virginia.
Swings from 2000:
wv 17.93 tenn 11.15 (loss of Gore factor) arka 10.75 miss 7.85 kent 7.36 ri 7.36 okla 7.26 alab 6.72 loui 5.99 iow 4.91 nd 4.07 sd 3.53 wyo 3.12 mich 2.68 conn 2.67 penn 2.65 ohio 2.52 ny 1.97 indi 1.81 nj 1.55 main 1.22 miss 0.83 dela 0.81 flor 0.69 wisc 0.58 min 0.44 kans 0.15 mass 0 nh -0.82 sc -0.84 nebr -1.32 ariz -1.36 illi -1.99 mon -2.27 neva -2.98 geor -3.27 idah -3.84 nm -4.08 mary -4.16 nc -4.55 oreg -5.28 wash -5.35 texa -6.11 (loss of Bush factor) colo -6.62 hawa -6.64 virg -6.68 alas -7.89 verm -8.02 cali -8.75 utah -10.75 (Ind factor)
Swings to the Republicans in Appalachia and along the Mississippi Swings to the Democrats along both coasts
Its really not dissimilar to that seen in UK - swings to Labour in the cities and away from Labour in rural and industrial areas.
The left in both the U.K and U.s face a prediciment. There is a continuing shift in america from former industrial towns to large cities. Most of the people who make the move are more liberal (or become so) and so leave behind a more conservative population. And because the big cities are concetrated in fewer states the conservative vote becomes more efficient. Under both the E.C and FPTP that is a big problem for the centre left parties. I think the issue is more pronounced in the U.S because they seem to move around much more.
If we can only get the MOD to admit the Challenger II upgrade is a fail and we need to buy a foreign tank while we learn how to build them again...
I want Merkavas just to upset the Foreign office.
I'm sure we will still have some wasteful defence procurement, and some things we will want to build ourselves. But I do think this is one area where the government are doing a good job, and we will get better value for money than we have done in recent decades.
I think we should all take a step back when China becomes the defender of free trade. What have we done when a country with huge human rights abuses and massive curtailments on freedom is seen as the vanguard of free trade.
That Germany are willing to get down in the mud with China shows they clearly value their trade higher than personal liberty.
Should we, as western democratic nations, be condoning quasi despotic regimes because it suits us economically?
Germany should take a long, hard look at itself in the mirror and decide what it values more. A few extra GDP points or ensuring personal liberty and freedom and democratic values.
Whether or not we like Trump, America voted for him. No one voted for Xi Xingping or the Communist party in China.
Germany, if they are prepared to do it, is doing a fantastic job! We have a full blown nutcase in Washington DC now.
The US presidential election was hardly democratic asthey follow the Slobodan Milosevic rule: the candidate coming second wins.
No, no, a thousand times no. Trump won on the basis of the electoral college votes. That's the US system. To suggest that he's somehow illegitimate because he had fewer total voters is (in my mind, ofc) incredibly dangerous and destabilising.
By all means campaign to change the rules, that's fine.
This should be a no-brainer, we should offer Oz, NZ and maybe Canada Free Movement in toto.
If it's reciprocal, then yes: I'd quite like to live in Australia, *especially* during winter. But if it isn't, then no.
I'm all for free movement with Aus.
Indeed. But reading between the lines, they intend to let them get in but stop me getting out. So I'm not best pleased.
You mean they have their own national interest in mind? How parochial and bigoted of them! Don't they know that you should always put the interests of other countries first? Countries which preach hatred of you at the top of the list, or course.
The deal will be some ratio of visas, probably of various types, going in both directions.
To be blunt as an island on the northern edge of Europe for defence purposes the only nations we would need to beat are other EU nations as we are now no longer a superpower but a medium sized power the only expeditions we would undertake to the Middle-East and the Pacific etc would be alongside the U.S. (the Falklands excepted of course). In terms of defence spending we already spend more than the European average and as you say only France really matches us so defence spending is really something the rest of Europe need to focus on rather than the U.K. especially with healthcare etc to fund
Counties with a more powerful military than the UK: USA, China, Russia, India, France
Countries with a miltary less powerful than the UK: 190 other countries
Not exactly middle of the road.
With Trump in the Whitehouse we could get dragged into all sorts of fights that the US declines to get involved in. The Falklands certainly, but also pretty much any fight on the eastern border of the EU bearing in mind how crap most of those countries militaries are. We also have defense treaties with many commonwealth countries, and former commonwealth countries, as well as with Singapore and Malaysia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Power_Defence_Arrangements
My aunt - who has blonde hair - told me last year that when she visited Brussels she felt very uncomfortable when walking through part of the city. But I guess it's not an issue if you stay away from the ghettos.
My Uncle and Aunt live in Birmingham - there are areas where you don't go, if you are not from the correct ethnic group, late at night. A Pakistani going through the Somali area on foot would not be a good plan, for example.
Interestingly, being elderly and white gives you a certain immunity to this, apparently.
I have never experinced anything like this in North west london although I'm sure in parts in parts of east London there is a problem. I don't know what you do about segregation without huge goverment intervention on a communist level.
You start in the same way as say driving without a seatbelt, you try to make it socially unacceptable to the extent that people starts to object more vocally when it happens. That requires the government to have the courage to take on entrenched views in minority communities even if only in media campaigns, and more importantly they need to give the people that might speak out the confidence that such actions will not be treated by the more idiotic parts of Her Majesty's Constabulary as a hate crime!
I used to live in the People's Republic of Tower Hamlets. There were mini riots (50 plus "youths" throwing stuff at each other, punching etc) every Bangladeshi Independence day. The police never seemed interested....
We should by the new Leopard 2A6, partly because its a damn good tank, but mostly because it would encourage a far more cooperative approach from the Germans over the new few years
If we can only get the MOD to admit the Challenger II upgrade is a fail and we need to buy a foreign tank while we learn how to build them again...
I want Merkavas just to upset the Foreign office.
I'm sure we will still have some wasteful defence procurement, and some things we will want to build ourselves. But I do think this is one area where the government are doing a good job, and we will get better value for money than we have done in recent decades.
The anger from the "Defense" lobby is the important sign. Failed development contracts bring them billions without having to deliver anything.
I think we should all take a step back when China becomes the defender of free trade. What have we done when a country with huge human rights abuses and massive curtailments on freedom is seen as the vanguard of free trade.
That Germany are willing to get down in the mud with China shows they clearly value their trade higher than personal liberty.
Should we, as western democratic nations, be condoning quasi despotic regimes because it suits us economically?
Germany should take a long, hard look at itself in the mirror and decide what it values more. A few extra GDP points or ensuring personal liberty and freedom and democratic values.
Whether or not we like Trump, America voted for him. No one voted for Xi Xingping or the Communist party in China.
Germany, if they are prepared to do it, is doing a fantastic job! We have a full blown nutcase in Washington DC now.
The US presidential election was hardly democratic asthey follow the Slobodan Milosevic rule: the candidate coming second wins.
No, no, a thousand times no. Trump won on the basis of the electoral college votes. That's the US system. To suggest that he's somehow illegitimate because he had fewer total voters is (in my mind, ofc) incredibly dangerous and destabilising.
By all means campaign to change the rules, that's fine.
If you lose at rugby, there's no point complaining you'd have won if you were playing cricket.
Every puff of wind you extract from the airflow to turn into power changes the eco system. The power will do work and create heat to be dissipated into the atmosphere. The wind is stolen from the sea or land and less moisture evaporates so there is less natural cooling and a change to cloud formation. There is no such thing as free energy, and use of wind has the potential to change climate in a significant way. Every joule of solar power you extract well produce work and heat for mankind. Also the amount of natural heat from the sun that is radiated back into space will diminish. It isn't free. Capture and use of all energy sources have the potential to alter climate, even the bizarrely named green energies.
Sorry, but this nonsense. All the energy arriving from the sun ends up being radiated away again in the end. Energy "stolen" from the wind is eventually radiated in the form of heat from our houses and appliances (rather than from the general terrain). All we're doing with wind farms is diverting some of the energy for useful purposes.
Thanks for pointing that out. The anti-renewables are just nutcases.
With Trump in the Whitehouse we could get dragged into all sorts of fights that the US declines to get involved in.
Whatever Trump has said we shouldn't overlook the appointment of Secretary of Defense Mattis who seems to be quite pro NATO and anti Russia. If the "Trump believes the last thing he heard" rule holds Trump's stance might change quite quickly.
Following my last post, It's really striking how well Bill Clinton performed with blue collar White voters, twenty years ago, in rural/small town/medium town America, compared with his wife's performance in 2016. He won Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Iowa by double-digit margins. He also carried Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona, Ohio. All of those now look out of reach or the Democrats, apart from Arizona and Pennsylvania.
All that the Democrats have gained in return is Virginia.
Swings from 2000:
wv 17.93 tenn 11.15 (loss of Gore factor) arka 10.75 miss 7.85 kent 7.36 ri 7.36 okla 7.26 alab 6.72 loui 5.99 iow 4.91 nd 4.07 sd 3.53 wyo 3.12 mich 2.68 conn 2.67 penn 2.65 ohio 2.52 ny 1.97 indi 1.81 nj 1.55 main 1.22 miss 0.83 dela 0.81 flor 0.69 wisc 0.58 min 0.44 kans 0.15 mass 0 nh -0.82 sc -0.84 nebr -1.32 ariz -1.36 illi -1.99 mon -2.27 neva -2.98 geor -3.27 idah -3.84 nm -4.08 mary -4.16 nc -4.55 oreg -5.28 wash -5.35 texa -6.11 (loss of Bush factor) colo -6.62 hawa -6.64 virg -6.68 alas -7.89 verm -8.02 cali -8.75 utah -10.75 (Ind factor)
Swings to the Republicans in Appalachia and along the Mississippi Swings to the Democrats along both coasts
Its really not dissimilar to that seen in UK - swings to Labour in the cities and away from Labour in rural and industrial areas.
The left in both the U.K and U.s face a prediciment. There is a continuing shift in america from former industrial towns to large cities. Most of the people who make the move are more liberal (or become so) and so leave behind a more conservative population. And because the big cities are concetrated in fewer states the conservative vote becomes more efficient. Under both the E.C and FPTP that is a big problem for the centre left parties. I think the issue is more pronounced in the U.S because they seem to move around much more.
Yes but as states with big cities get bigger populations they could more EC votes and those industrial states they left get fewer EC votes and in the UK boundary changes also adjust constituencies too
This should be a no-brainer, we should offer Oz, NZ and maybe Canada Free Movement in toto.
They would not want that - they would be overrun with Brits.
If Aussies want free movement to London there has to be free movement of Brits to Australia in return
Yes, that was my point. There are more of us than them and there are more of us that would want to live there permanently than there are them who would want to emigrate here permanently. Same applies to both NZ and Canada, too.
It's too far away for it to be an issue. They're not gonna be flooded with Brits. And Aussies REALLY want free movement to London.
I don't think it will fly just because no one will be bold enough, but it would work perfectly well.
Yet Southam supports unlimited free movement to Britain but thinks Aus, Can and NZ would be 'overrun with Brits'.
And isn't 'overrun' an interesting word.
I wonder what middle class lefties would have accused anyone in Britain of being if they had said their communities were being 'overrun' with immigrants.
.
You're exposed Southam as a hypocrite.
The casual derogatory comment "they would be overrun with Brits" is there for all to see. Trying to explain it away isn't going to work.
Unlimited immigration to Britain it seems is good while migration of Brits to Aus, Can and NZ would be bad for the locals.
That Brits emigrating to Aus, Can and NZ would be moving to countries with highly similar cultural and economic features while the unlimited immigration to Britain which you support is from far more dissimilar countries merely highlights your hypocrisy.
And I suspect there is far more available land for development in Aus, Can and NZ than there is in Britain. IIRC SeanT wrote about a stretch of Victoria 'half the size of England with only the population of Southampton'.
Agreed. Right-wing Brits should emigrate from Britain. They can go anywhere they like.
Following my last post, It's really striking how well Bill Clinton performed with blue collar White voters, twenty years ago, in rural/small town/medium town America, compared with his wife's performance in 2016. He won Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Iowa by double-digit margins. He also carried Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona, Ohio. All of those now look out of reach or the Democrats, apart from Arizona and Pennsylvania.
All that the Democrats have gained in return is Virginia.
Swings from 2000:
wv 17.93 tenn 11.15 (loss of Gore factor) arka 10.75 miss 7.85 kent 7.36 ri 7.36 okla 7.26 alab 6.72 loui 5.99 iow 4.91 nd 4.07 sd 3.53 wyo 3.12 mich 2.68 conn 2.67 penn 2.65 ohio 2.52 ny 1.97 indi 1.81 nj 1.55 main 1.22 miss 0.83 dela 0.81 flor 0.69 wisc 0.58 min 0.44 kans 0.15 mass 0 nh -0.82 sc -0.84 nebr -1.32 ariz -1.36 illi -1.99 mon -2.27 neva -2.98 geor -3.27 idah -3.84 nm -4.08 mary -4.16 nc -4.55 oreg -5.28 wash -5.35 texa -6.11 (loss of Bush factor) colo -6.62 hawa -6.64 virg -6.68 alas -7.89 verm -8.02 cali -8.75 utah -10.75 (Ind factor)
Swings to the Republicans in Appalachia and along the Mississippi Swings to the Democrats along both coasts
Its really not dissimilar to that seen in UK - swings to Labour in the cities and away from Labour in rural and industrial areas.
The left in both the U.K and U.s face a prediciment. There is a continuing shift in america from former industrial towns to large cities. Most of the people who make the move are more liberal (or become so) and so leave behind a more conservative population. And because the big cities are concetrated in fewer states the conservative vote becomes more efficient. Under both the E.C and FPTP that is a big problem for the centre left parties. I think the issue is more pronounced in the U.S because they seem to move around much more.
The problem becomes self-reinforcing, because the Left ceases to be able to compromise with voters outside big cities. The latter think the Left will give them Social Justice good and hard if they win, so they make sure they vote Right.
This should be a no-brainer, we should offer Oz, NZ and maybe Canada Free Movement in toto.
They would not want that - they would be overrun with Brits.
If Aussies want free movement to London there has to be free movement of Brits to Australia in return
Yes, that was my point. There are more of us than them and there are more of us that would want to live there permanently than there are them who would want to emigrate here permanently. Same applies to both NZ and Canada, too.
It's too far away for it to be an issue. They're not gonna be flooded with Brits. And Aussies REALLY want free movement to London.
I don't think it will fly just because no one will be bold enough, but it would work perfectly well.
Yet Southam supports unlimited free movement to Britain but thinks Aus, Can and NZ would be 'overrun with Brits'.
And isn't 'overrun' an interesting word.
I wonder what middle class lefties would have accused anyone in Britain of being if they had said their communities were being 'overrun' with immigrants.
.
You're exposed Southam as a hypocrite.
The casual derogatory comment "they would be overrun with Brits" is there for all to see. Trying to explain it away isn't going to work.
Unlimited immigration to Britain it seems is good while migration of Brits to Aus, Can and NZ would be bad for the locals.
That Brits emigrating to Aus, Can and NZ would be moving to countries with highly similar cultural and economic features while the unlimited immigration to Britain which you support is from far more dissimilar countries merely highlights your hypocrisy.
And I suspect there is far more available land for development in Aus, Can and NZ than there is in Britain. IIRC SeanT wrote about a stretch of Victoria 'half the size of England with only the population of Southampton'.
Agreed. Right-wing Brits should emigrate from Britain. They can go anywhere they like.
With Trump in the Whitehouse we could get dragged into all sorts of fights that the US declines to get involved in.
Whatever Trump has said we shouldn't overlook the appointment of Secretary of Defense Mattis who seems to be quite pro NATO and anti Russia. If the "Trump believes the last thing he heard" rule holds Trump's stance might change quite quickly.
I also like to point out that Mattis is also the person who validates a presidential nuclear launch order. He seems quite sensible, which may reassure some of the frailer spirits in our happy band.
Germany, if they are prepared to do it, is doing a fantastic job! We have a full blown nutcase in Washington DC now.
The US presidential election was hardly democratic asthey follow the Slobodan Milosevic rule: the candidate coming second wins.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
States elect Presidents, voters dont. Currently all the states chose to consult their voters one which candidates the state's electors should support, there is no constitutional requirement to do so.
Mr. Sandpit, I believe some other teams are (to a lesser extent) also financially privileged. If that can be tackled, then perhaps the nonsense of no race fee for Monaco can be challenged too.
I'd say race fees need to come down dramatically, unless you prefer watching races in Baku and Sochi to Spa and Monza?
If we can only get the MOD to admit the Challenger II upgrade is a fail and we need to buy a foreign tank while we learn how to build them again...
I want Merkavas just to upset the Foreign office.
I'm sure we will still have some wasteful defence procurement, and some things we will want to build ourselves. But I do think this is one area where the government are doing a good job, and we will get better value for money than we have done in recent decades.
The anger from the "Defense" lobby is the important sign. Failed development contracts bring them billions without having to deliver anything.
To be blunt as an island on the northern edge of Europe for defence purposes the only nations we would need to beat are other EU nations as we are now no longer a superpower but a medium sized power the only expeditions we would undertake to the Middle-East and the Pacific etc would be alongside the U.S. (the Falklands excepted of course). In terms of defence spending we already spend more than the European average and as you say only France really matches us so defence spending is really something the rest of Europe need to focus on rather than the U.K. especially with healthcare etc to fund
Counties with a more powerful military than the UK: USA, China, Russia, India, France
Countries with a miltary less powerful than the UK: 190 other countries
Not exactly middle of the road.
With Trump in the Whitehouse we could get dragged into all sorts of fights that the US declines to get involved in. The Falklands certainly, but also pretty much any fight on the eastern border of the EU bearing in mind how crap most of those countries militaries are. We also have defense treaties with many commonwealth countries, and former commonwealth countries, as well as with Singapore and Malaysia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Power_Defence_Arrangements
We will only fight for Eastern European countries alongside those countries themselves and most of the EU, any fighting for Commonwealth nations will be done alongsidethem and most likely much of the rest of the Commonwealth too
Yes Hamon looks like the candidate to beat at the moment but in terms of the general election it will makes little difference, the latest polls show whichever one of the 3 wins will still come 5th and it will be Le Pen and Fillon contesting the run-off
Given previous discussions on automation Hamon has an interesting proposal to tax robots to pay for a universal basic income
To be blunt as an island on the northern edge of Europe for defence purposes the only nations we would need to beat are other EU nations as we are now no longer a superpower but a medium sized power the only expeditions we would undertake to the Middle-East and the Pacific etc would be alongside the U.S. (the Falklands excepted of course). In terms of defence spending we already spend more than the European average and as you say only France really matches us so defence spending is really something the rest of Europe need to focus on rather than the U.K. especially with healthcare etc to fund
Counties with a more powerful military than the UK: USA, China, Russia, India, France
Countries with a miltary less powerful than the UK: 190 other countries
Not exactly middle of the road.
With Trump in the Whitehouse we could get dragged into all sorts of fights that the US declines to get involved in. The Falklands certainly, but also pretty much any fight on the eastern border of the EU bearing in mind how crap most of those countries militaries are. We also have defense treaties with many commonwealth countries, and former commonwealth countries, as well as with Singapore and Malaysia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Power_Defence_Arrangements
We will only fight for Eastern European countries alongside those countries themselves and most of the EU, any fighting for Commonwealth nations will be done alongsidethem and most likely much of the rest of the Commonwealth too
But most of them have pitifully small militaries which will make no material difference to the result.
We've got at least 4 more years of this humiliating boot-licking of Trump. So much for all that extra post-brexit sovereignty, we are going to subcontract it all out to the US anyway.
So with May our foreign policy is: whatever Trump says, goes. No wonder she is referred to as Trump's pussy!
Besides it's usually the left who threaten to leave their country. They did it with Bush, Cameron, Brexit, Trump, though not many are actually true to their word.
We've got at least 4 more years of this humiliating boot-licking of Trump. So much for all that extra post-brexit sovereignty, we are going to subcontract it all out to the US anyway.
So with May our foreign policy is: whatever Trump says, goes. No wonder she is referred to as Trump's pussy!
Christ on a bike, she hasn't even spoken to the man yet, and he only put his backside on the presidential seat today. Might be time to take a deep breath and see what happens over the next few months for crying us a river about it.
Following my last post, It's really striking how well Bill Clinton performed with blue collar White voters, twenty years ago, in rural/small town/medium town America, compared with his wife's performance in 2016. He won Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Iowa by double-digit margins. He also carried Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona, Ohio. All of those now look out of reach or the Democrats, apart from Arizona and Pennsylvania.
All that the Democrats have gained in return is Virginia.
Swings from 2000:
wv 17.93 tenn 11.15 (loss of Gore factor) arka 10.75 miss 7.85 kent 7.36 ri 7.36 okla 7.26 alab 6.72 loui 5.99 iow 4.91 nd 4.07 sd 3.53 wyo 3.12 mich 2.68 conn 2.67 penn 2.65 ohio 2.52 ny 1.97 indi 1.81 nj 1.55 main 1.22 miss 0.83 dela 0.81 flor 0.69 wisc 0.58 min 0.44 kans 0.15 mass 0 nh -0.82 sc -0.84 nebr -1.32 ariz -1.36 illi -1.99 mon -2.27 neva -2.98 geor -3.27 idah -3.84 nm -4.08 mary -4.16 nc -4.55 oreg -5.28 wash -5.35 texa -6.11 (loss of Bush factor) colo -6.62 hawa -6.64 virg -6.68 alas -7.89 verm -8.02 cali -8.75 utah -10.75 (Ind factor)
Swings to the Republicans in Appalachia and along the Mississippi Swings to the Democrats along both coasts
Its really not dissimilar to that seen in UK - swings to Labour in the cities and away from Labour in rural and industrial areas.
The left in both the U.K and U.s face a prediciment. There is a continuing shift in america from former industrial towns to large cities. Most of the people who make the move are more liberal (or become so) and so leave behind a more conservative population. And because the big cities are concetrated in fewer states the conservative vote becomes more efficient. Under both the E.C and FPTP that is a big problem for the centre left parties. I think the issue is more pronounced in the U.S because they seem to move around much more.
The problem becomes self-reinforcing, because the Left ceases to be able to compromise with voters outside big cities. The latter think the Left will give them Social Justice good and hard if they win, so they make sure they vote Right.
Rural areas and small towns are increasingly out of reach for the left but that has long been the case, it is the suburbs which decide elections, Obama was able to carry the suburbs for example
To be blunt as an island on the northern edge of Europe for defence purposes the only nations we would need to beat are other EU nations as we are now no longer a superpower but a medium sized power the only expeditions we would undertake to the Middle-East and the Pacific etc would be alongside the U.S. (the Falklands excepted of course). In terms of defence spending we already spend more than the European average and as you say only France really matches us so defence spending is really something the rest of Europe need to focus on rather than the U.K. especially with healthcare etc to fund
Counties with a more powerful military than the UK: USA, China, Russia, India, France
Countries with a miltary less powerful than the UK: 190 other countries
Not exactly middle of the road.
With Trump in the Whitehouse we could get dragged into all sorts of fights that the US declines to get involved in. The Falklands certainly, but also pretty much any fight on the eastern border of the EU bearing in mind how crap most of those countries militaries are. We also have defense treaties with many commonwealth countries, and former commonwealth countries, as well as with Singapore and Malaysia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Power_Defence_Arrangements
We will only fight for Eastern European countries alongside those countries themselves and most of the EU, any fighting for Commonwealth nations will be done alongsidethem and most likely much of the rest of the Commonwealth too
But most of them have pitifully small militaries which will make no material difference to the result.
So what, we would be fighting alongside France and Germany or Australia and South Africa not on our own
We've got at least 4 more years of this humiliating boot-licking of Trump. So much for all that extra post-brexit sovereignty, we are going to subcontract it all out to the US anyway.
So with May our foreign policy is: whatever Trump says, goes. No wonder she is referred to as Trump's pussy!
Following my last post, It's really striking how well Bill Clinton performed with blue collar White voters, twenty years ago, in rural/small town/medium town America, compared with his wife's performance in 2016. He won Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Iowa by double-digit margins. He also carried Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona, Ohio. All of those now look out of reach or the Democrats, apart from Arizona and Pennsylvania.
All that the Democrats have gained in return is Virginia.
Swings from 2000:
wv 17.93 tenn 11.15 (loss of Gore factor) arka 10.75 miss 7.85 kent 7.36 ri 7.36 okla 7.26 alab 6.72 loui 5.99 iow 4.91 nd 4.07 sd 3.53 wyo 3.12 mich 2.68 conn 2.67 penn 2.65 ohio 2.52 ny 1.97 indi 1.81 nj 1.55 main 1.22 miss 0.83 dela 0.81 flor 0.69 wisc 0.58 min 0.44 kans 0.15 mass 0 nh -0.82 sc -0.84 nebr -1.32 ariz -1.36 illi -1.99 mon -2.27 neva -2.98 geor -3.27 idah -3.84 nm -4.08 mary -4.16 nc -4.55 oreg -5.28 wash -5.35 texa -6.11 (loss of Bush factor) colo -6.62 hawa -6.64 virg -6.68 alas -7.89 verm -8.02 cali -8.75 utah -10.75 (Ind factor)
Swings to the Republicans in Appalachia and along the Mississippi Swings to the Democrats along both coasts
Its really not dissimilar to that seen in UK - swings to Labour in the cities and away from Labour in rural and industrial areas.
The left in both the U.K and U.s face a prediciment. There is a continuing shift in america from former industrial towns to large cities. Most of the people who make the move are more liberal (or become so) and so leave behind a more conservative population. And because the big cities are concetrated in fewer states the conservative vote becomes more efficient. Under both the E.C and FPTP that is a big problem for the centre left parties. I think the issue is more pronounced in the U.S because they seem to move around much more.
Yes but as states with big cities get bigger populations they could more EC votes and those industrial states they left get fewer EC votes and in the UK boundary changes also adjust constituencies too
those adjustmunts happen too slowly, and remember you only need to win a state by one vote in the U.S to win all of the electorate college votes. This means small shifts in population over four years can make a huge difference.
Following my last post, It's really striking how well Bill Clinton performed with blue collar White voters, twenty years ago, in rural/small town/medium town America, compared with his wife's performance in 2016. He won Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Iowa by double-digit margins. He also carried Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona, Ohio. All of those now look out of reach or the Democrats, apart from Arizona and Pennsylvania.
All that the Democrats have gained in return is Virginia.
Swings from 2000:
wv 17.93 tenn 11.15 (loss of Gore factor) arka 10.75 miss 7.85 kent 7.36 ri 7.36 okla 7.26 alab 6.72 loui 5.99 iow 4.91 nd 4.07 sd 3.53 wyo 3.12 mich 2.68 conn 2.67 penn 2.65 ohio 2.52 ny 1.97 indi 1.81 nj 1.55 main 1.22 miss 0.83 dela 0.81 flor 0.69 wisc 0.58 min 0.44 kans 0.15 mass 0 nh -0.82 sc -0.84 nebr -1.32 ariz -1.36 illi -1.99 mon -2.27 neva -2.98 geor -3.27 idah -3.84 nm -4.08 mary -4.16 nc -4.55 oreg -5.28 wash -5.35 texa -6.11 (loss of Bush factor) colo -6.62 hawa -6.64 virg -6.68 alas -7.89 verm -8.02 cali -8.75 utah -10.75 (Ind factor)
Swings to the Republicans in Appalachia and along the Mississippi Swings to the Democrats along both coasts
Its really not dissimilar to that seen in UK - swings to Labour in the cities and away from Labour in rural and industrial areas.
The left in both the U.K and U.s face a prediciment. There is a continuing shift in america from former industrial towns to large cities. Most of the people who make the move are more liberal (or become so) and so leave behind a more conservative population. And because the big cities are concetrated in fewer states the conservative vote becomes more efficient. Under both the E.C and FPTP that is a big problem for the centre left parties. I think the issue is more pronounced in the U.S because they seem to move around much more.
Yes but as states with big cities get bigger populations they could more EC votes and those industrial states they left get fewer EC votes and in the UK boundary changes also adjust constituencies too
those adjustmunts happen too slowly, and remember you only need to win a state by one vote in the U.S to win all of the electorate college votes. This means small shifts in population over four years can make a huge difference.
The next EC adjustment will be 2020 and of course as more liberals and moderates move to Houston and Dallas that puts Texas in play for the Democrats (Hillary did better in 2016 in Texas than Obama had in 2012). Were the Democrats ever to win Texas that would more than make up for losses to the GOP in the Midwest
Yes Hamon looks like the candidate to beat at the moment but in terms of the general election it will makes little difference, the latest polls show whichever one of the 3 wins will still come 5th and it will be Le Pen and Fillon contesting the run-off
It's not being commented on much that the candidate running at 4th in the polls (14%) is Jean-Luc Mélenchon. He is doing well. He is to the left of the SP which after five years of François Hollande in the Elysée is largely discredited.
In my opinion, Emmanuel Macron has got little chance. He was viewed as François Hollande's vice-president until a few months ago, whereas the last time Mélenchon was in government was in 2002. A sprog of Macron's young age has never been elected president of the Fifth Republic. Most importantly, polarisation is the thing, and you can't polarise from the centre. I won't be surprised if Mélenchon beats Macron and makes it to the top three.
In 2002, eleven candidates won more than 3% of the vote. In 2017, polls suggest that only six will: Le Pen, Fillon, Macron, Mélenchon, Bayrou (who may not stand), and the SP candidate, whoever it turns out to be.
In 2002, the top three got 19%, 17% and 16%. I don't fancy Macron's chances of making the second round, but imagine if Mélenchon does. He can say that Fillon is Le Pen "lite", Valls (or Hamon or Montebourg) would be more of the same Hollande offering, and ditto Macron, who is another énarque to boot, just like Hollande, whereas what is needed is change. Assume Le Pen comes top. Then unless Mélenchon drops out, which is possible, it will be him against Le Pen. Who would be the favourite to win? I wish pollsters would ask. The answer is probably Le Pen, but Mélenchon is available at a price of 160.
We've got at least 4 more years of this humiliating boot-licking of Trump. So much for all that extra post-brexit sovereignty, we are going to subcontract it all out to the US anyway.
So with May our foreign policy is: whatever Trump says, goes. No wonder she is referred to as Trump's pussy!
I think they're trying to position her as Trump's Thatch.
I wonder if it's the same hideous nicotine yellow as the top weave?
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been poring over old interviews and video of Donald Trump, seeking clues on how to influence the incoming U.S. president when they first meet, according to two people familiar with her preparations.
Merkel’s message to the Trump administration will have to be that the EU is “strategic interest for Germany” and U.S. efforts to weaken it would mean “you’re treading on our lawn,” Thomas Bagger, head of policy planning at the German Foreign Ministry, said at an event in Berlin on Thursday. “I think that’s the only message he’ll get and the only message he’ll listen to.”
Every puff of wind you extract from the airflow to turn into power changes the eco system. The power will do work and create heat to be dissipated into the atmosphere. The wind is stolen from the sea or land and less moisture evaporates so there is less natural cooling and a change to cloud formation. There is no such thing as free energy, and use of wind has the potential to change climate in a significant way. Every joule of solar power you extract well produce work and heat for mankind. Also the amount of natural heat from the sun that is radiated back into space will diminish. It isn't free. Capture and use of all energy sources have the potential to alter climate, even the bizarrely named green energies.
Sorry, but this nonsense. All the energy arriving from the sun ends up being radiated away again in the end. Energy "stolen" from the wind is eventually radiated in the form of heat from our houses and appliances (rather than from the general terrain). All we're doing with wind farms is diverting some of the energy for useful purposes.
Thanks for pointing that out. The anti-renewables are just nutcases.
Well it is nonsense of you think you can take energy from a place and the removal of that energy will have no effect on the work it was destined to do in the place it is removed from. But that would be a fictional form of energy.
If it was left in it's natural state rather than harvesting it it would alter it's environment. One of the results of that is called weather, the transfer of energy by temperature transfers, moisture and humidity transfers. Harvest the energy as turbine power and the work it was destined to do remains undone, altering the climate in that place.
Going back to that Wilders blonde thing. The lefty response on Twitter is compellingly dim. Even insane, if the definition of insanity is repeating and reinforcing failure.
They refuse, despite Brexit, Trump, Wilders, Le Pen, and any number of populist right wing surges across the West, to believe there is a problem with integration and Islam. And this is despite, as I say, plentiful evidence that ignoring this sends voters to the hard right or, eventually, the far right.
So they will get the result they least desire. We will see actual Fascists elected in Europe. And the stupidity of the Left will be the cause.
But that's OK. After actual Fascists are elected, the lefties can go on marches and carry righteous placards and retweet each other exultantly. As Fascists wield power.
Och well, you'll be able to blame all the Fascist excesses on the lefties while enjoying the fascism.
This should be a no-brainer, we should offer Oz, NZ and maybe Canada Free Movement in toto.
If it's reciprocal, then yes: I'd quite like to live in Australia, *especially* during winter. But if it isn't, then no.
I'm all for free movement with Aus.
Indeed. But reading between the lines, they intend to let them get in but stop me getting out. So I'm not best pleased.
That deal certainly shouldn't be signed.
The Ozzies would be mad to swap their young, educated go getters with our aged winging oldies.......... We already have that deal with the likes of Spain, but thanks to Brexit, our oldies will return, with all their health complaints and we will lose the bright and best and youngest of the likes of Spain. Sad.
Going back to that Wilders blonde thing. The lefty response on Twitter is compellingly dim. Even insane, if the definition of insanity is repeating and reinforcing failure.
They refuse, despite Brexit, Trump, Wilders, Le Pen, and any number of populist right wing surges across the West, to believe there is a problem with integration and Islam. And this is despite, as I say, plentiful evidence that ignoring this sends voters to the hard right or, eventually, the far right.
So they will get the result they least desire. We will see actual Fascists elected in Europe. And the stupidity of the Left will be the cause.
But that's OK. After actual Fascists are elected, the lefties can go on marches and carry righteous placards and retweet each other exultantly. As Fascists wield power.
Och well, you'll be able to blame all the Fascist excesses on the lefties while enjoying the fascism.
Result.
You've quite cheered me up. And I was already feeling perky in the Bangkok starlight.
Yes Hamon looks like the candidate to beat at the moment but in terms of the general election it will makes little difference, the latest polls show whichever one of the 3 wins will still come 5th and it will be Le Pen and Fillon contesting the run-off
It's not being commented on much that the candidate running at 4th in the polls (14%) is Jean-Luc Mélenchon. He is doing well. He is to the left of the SP which after five years of François Hollande in the Elysée is largely discredited.
In my opinion, Emmanuel Macron has got little chance. He was viewed as François Hollande's vice-president until a few months ago, whereas the last time Mélenchon was in government was in 2002. A sprog of Macron's young age has never been elected president of the Fifth Republic. Most importantly, polarisation is the thing, and you can't polarise from the centre. I won't be surprised if Mélenchon beats Macron and makes it to the top three.
In 2002, eleven candidates won more than 3% of the vote. In 2017, polls suggest that only six will: Le Pen, Fillon, Macron, Mélenchon, Bayrou (who may not stand), and the SP candidate, whoever it turns out to be.
In 2002, the top three got 19%, 17% and 16%. I don't fancy Macron's chances of making the second round, but imagine if Mélenchon does. He can say that Fillon is Le Pen "lite", Valls (or Hamon or Montebourg) would be more of the same Hollande offering, and ditto Macron, who is another énarque to boot, just like Hollande, whereas what is needed is change. Assume Le Pen comes top. Then unless Mélenchon drops out, which is possible, it will be him against Le Pen. Who would be the favourite to win? I wish pollsters would ask. The answer is probably Le Pen, but Mélenchon is available at a price of 160.
Can't see Melenchon beating Macron, Hamon will take some of his leftwing vote (Hamon resigned from the Cabinet because it was not left enough). Le Pen v Fillon is the most likely run-off with Macron a strong third
Mr. Sandpit, indeed. TV audiences are declining due to lack of competition, the shift from free-to-air to pay TV and circuits in places willing to provide large race fees but which offer little entertainment.
F1 isn't in critical condition but it isn't hard to see how it could be soon.
The L2 is currently operating for 16 countries, including countries in the middle of serious fights like Turkey, over 3000 units are currently in service.
The Challenger 2 is used by the UK and Oman only, comprising less than 500 units, and the 1st Armored Division is currently deployed in German, so not that likely to take many casualties.
Comments
The casual derogatory comment "they would be overrun with Brits" is there for all to see. Trying to explain it away isn't going to work.
Unlimited immigration to Britain it seems is good while migration of Brits to Aus, Can and NZ would be bad for the locals.
That Brits emigrating to Aus, Can and NZ would be moving to countries with highly similar cultural and economic features while the unlimited immigration to Britain which you support is from far more dissimilar countries merely highlights your hypocrisy.
And I suspect there is far more available land for development in Aus, Can and NZ than there is in Britain. IIRC SeanT wrote about a stretch of Victoria 'half the size of England with only the population of Southampton'.
Interestingly, being elderly and white gives you a certain immunity to this, apparently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uKobSevmbQ
The problem is all the "we need our own special version of X" mentality in the MOD. IF we simply said - Tanks - Israeli Merkavas, Helicopters - American built Apaches, Rifles - FN2000 etc etc we would get much much more for our buck. Even if we built them here under license for the jobs.
The purchase of the P-8s and the RC-135 aircraft is showing some promise in that direction. The savagery with which "no special features" has been enforced is a wonder to behold.
1) Ceremonial units for the tourists
2) Some expensive equipment which either doesn't work and/or has nobody available to use it
3) Trident
4) Lots of Generals, Admirals and Air Marshals (with associated lackeys)
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/#/politics/event/28056567/market?marketId=1.129131205
Benn or Starmer or Jarvis should have stood last time, and *must* stand next time if they are to save Labour. But Corbyn should have gone after his Shadow Cabinet resigned en masse, and without question, after the PLP overwhelmingly no confidenced him.
By the way, I think you're unfair on D Miliband. He stood exactly when he meant to, having behaved exactly in line with the Labour's tradition you applaud, of sticking by his leader through thick and thin. (Though not volunteering for a hospital pass presumably had something to do with it too). It was his campaign rather than his record which lost him the election.
What all the European countries lack is the logistics & production capabilities for any kind of prolonged medium to high intensity conflict. We're all going to have to row back from that a tad, particularly if Trump decides to go with a combination of the Munroe doctrine and a continued pivot to the Pacific.
@Charles None of the news articles I've on it have reported that it's been archived.
http://www.politico.eu/article/germany-free-trades-reluctant-champion-china-trump-protectionism-international-trade/
One suspects that the US is about to get an almighty kick up the backside about the same issue, from the new Commander-in-Chief.
That Germany are willing to get down in the mud with China shows they clearly value their trade higher than personal liberty.
Should we, as western democratic nations, be condoning quasi despotic regimes because it suits us economically?
Germany should take a long, hard look at itself in the mirror and decide what it values more. A few extra GDP points or ensuring personal liberty and freedom and democratic values.
Whether or not we like Trump, America voted for him. No one voted for Xi Xingping or the Communist party in China.
https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/822816624067624961
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/#/politics/event/28010557/market?marketId=1.117179983
But as you say we shall believe it when we see it.
I want Merkavas just to upset the Foreign office.
The US presidential election was hardly democratic asthey follow the Slobodan Milosevic rule: the candidate coming second wins.
By all means campaign to change the rules, that's fine.
The deal will be some ratio of visas, probably of various types, going in both directions.
Countries with a miltary less powerful than the UK: 190 other countries
Not exactly middle of the road.
With Trump in the Whitehouse we could get dragged into all sorts of fights that the US declines to get involved in. The Falklands certainly, but also pretty much any fight on the eastern border of the EU bearing in mind how crap most of those countries militaries are. We also have defense treaties with many commonwealth countries, and former commonwealth countries, as well as with Singapore and Malaysia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Power_Defence_Arrangements
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
States elect Presidents, voters dont. Currently all the states chose to consult their voters one which candidates the state's electors should support, there is no constitutional requirement to do so.
In my opinion, Emmanuel Macron has got little chance. He was viewed as François Hollande's vice-president until a few months ago, whereas the last time Mélenchon was in government was in 2002. A sprog of Macron's young age has never been elected president of the Fifth Republic. Most importantly, polarisation is the thing, and you can't polarise from the centre. I won't be surprised if Mélenchon beats Macron and makes it to the top three.
In 2002, eleven candidates won more than 3% of the vote. In 2017, polls suggest that only six will: Le Pen, Fillon, Macron, Mélenchon, Bayrou (who may not stand), and the SP candidate, whoever it turns out to be.
In 2002, the top three got 19%, 17% and 16%. I don't fancy Macron's chances of making the second round, but imagine if Mélenchon does. He can say that Fillon is Le Pen "lite", Valls (or Hamon or Montebourg) would be more of the same Hollande offering, and ditto Macron, who is another énarque to boot, just like Hollande, whereas what is needed is change. Assume Le Pen comes top. Then unless Mélenchon drops out, which is possible, it will be him against Le Pen. Who would be the favourite to win? I wish pollsters would ask. The answer is probably Le Pen, but Mélenchon is available at a price of 160.
I wonder if it's the same hideous nicotine yellow as the top weave?
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been poring over old interviews and video of Donald Trump, seeking clues on how to influence the incoming U.S. president when they first meet, according to two people familiar with her preparations.
Merkel’s message to the Trump administration will have to be that the EU is “strategic interest for Germany” and U.S. efforts to weaken it would mean “you’re treading on our lawn,” Thomas Bagger, head of policy planning at the German Foreign Ministry, said at an event in Berlin on Thursday. “I think that’s the only message he’ll get and the only message he’ll listen to.”
If it was left in it's natural state rather than harvesting it it would alter it's environment. One of the results of that is called weather, the transfer of energy by temperature transfers, moisture and humidity transfers. Harvest the energy as turbine power and the work it was destined to do remains undone, altering the climate in that place.
Result.
We already have that deal with the likes of Spain, but thanks to Brexit, our oldies will return, with all their health complaints and we will lose the bright and best and youngest of the likes of Spain. Sad.
F1 isn't in critical condition but it isn't hard to see how it could be soon.
The L2 is currently operating for 16 countries, including countries in the middle of serious fights like Turkey, over 3000 units are currently in service.
The Challenger 2 is used by the UK and Oman only, comprising less than 500 units, and the 1st Armored Division is currently deployed in German, so not that likely to take many casualties.