I love it when people who are implacably opposed to the Republican Party try to give it lessons. Presumably to maintain the notion that everything is alright in the West and its business as usual, and what you are seeing is not a hologram.
But here's the thing. It really isn't all right.
The right is completely split in America. The party elite and the Trumpist base despise each other totally. The latter will not turn out for the former, as Georgia showed, and what follows is a hugely bitter primaries battle between the two factions ahead of 2022. When millions will not turn out again and the democrat hegemony intensifies.
Meanwhile, the Democrats will be deliberating just how much of a Jihad they want to declare on the many millions of Americans who turned out for Trump and now have zero faith in their country, its electoral system and its institutions.
Trump showed his millions of supporters a glimpse of an America they were comfortable with and where they were welcome and valuable citizens.
They are not going back to the likes of Romney. Not now. Not ever.
Trump is a symptom not a cause, and the cause is still very much there, if not more so than previously.
Agreed. But I don;t know if anyone can harness it like Trump. I quite like Kristi Noem.
Noem is a homophobic religious bigot. What is it you like about her?
CNN - Assistant House Speaker will move next week to impeach Trump if Pence does not invoke the 25th Amendment.
I can't see how this starts and finishes with Impeachment. They are going to go after the rest of the coup plotters and participants. That includes the Congressmen and Senators who participated in the White House plan to delay certification long enough to storm the building and force the imposition of marshal law.
There is no legal argument for the objections raised. The legal arguments were all raised and struck down as baseless. Nor can they claim with a straight face that there were genuine claims of wrongdoing to investigate when they are the people making the claims they want to investigate.
They are plotters and participants. They need to be dealt with. And I think this has shocked the political establishment enough to make it happen. Don't say that a purge of members can't be done - Boris managed it...
I think they should leave the objectors alone.
There’s no evidence they were active plotters, and in any case I believe their number includes a majority of Republican congressmen.
Calls for Tuberville etc to be expelled look too partisan.
Deal with Trump. Deal with the rioters.
Leave Cruz et al to stew in their own turpitude.
The objectors were active participants in the coup. Giuliani restated the plan in that phone call - delay certification long enough for the other parts of the coup to happen. They may not have known all the details of the plan but they were enthusiastic participants.
I don't think any of them will face justice. In America the bad guys always win if they have enough money.
Depressing last sentence.
Whatever happened to the America of John Wayne and Henry Fonda?
Seriously though, I haven’t seen any evidence that the objectors were “active participants”. Giuliani left a voicemail; Tuberville did not get it.
(Unlike, say, Boris, who *did* receive Darius Guppy’s phone call, and promised to send him Stuart Collier’s contact details so they Guppy could have the man assaulted.)
It’s quite amazing to think of the trajectory for Trump, from looking pretty good against all the odds in the early morning of Nov 4th to a bit less good and then to a conclusive if contested defeat. However the absolute reputation pounding destruction with a big, fat L all over it has been engineered by Trump himself; fantastic material for a morality tale if you like that sort of thing (which I do in the case of this creature). Prosecution and imprisonment would just be the delicious icing on the cake.
My (just now) reply b/f too -
And unless I'm missing something it shows he is driven by his "urges" rather than longer view (i.e. beyond NOW) calculation. So we can bury the "evil genius" myth while we're at it, except as it relates to finding and feeding LCDs with his comms. Re prison, my strong hunch - and therefore prediction - is it will not happen. I hope to have got that wildly, hopelessly wrong.
On vaccine choice, if I was given one I'd go for Moderna, but since I won't I'll take whatever I'm given.
The interesting part about the mRNA vaccines is that if a booster is needed then it could conceivably be an identical one to whatever you got last time as a single jab. With the others you may need two jabs in a new vector.
I think as time passes the two main mRNA vaccines will become dominant in the developed world while the vector ones will dominate in the developing world. It's a huge win for USA Inc. to have both major mRNA vaccines and such a huge missed opportunity for UK PLC to not have pursued the Imperial mRNA one.
Not so fast. It really depends on the efficacy of the Oxford jab. Which is uncertain.
There are hints it might be as good as, or nearly as good as, the mRNAs, in which case Oxford’s cheapness and ease of storage will make it a winner everywhere.
CNN - Assistant House Speaker will move next week to impeach Trump if Pence does not invoke the 25th Amendment.
I’m still undecided whether this is a good idea or not.
Me too. Creates a martyr to little practical purpose. And I know Trump theoretically has power to do damage... But practically? Pence is de facto in charge.
The big worry is that he will pardon all those who were involved on Wednesday. This creates the precedent that a President can attempt a coup with no possible downside if they lose.
The whole unlimited pardon thing seems completely unnecessary in the first place.
If you want to keep it but remove the personal element, you could change it to the pardons also need to be approved by two former Presidents to take effect.
"The Prime Minister knows that to lose Scotland would be a resigning matter. And there’s a chance he wouldn’t even be allowed to get that far: his party might not keep a leader who looked close to losing the union.
Rishi Sunak is viewed by Tory strategists as the cabinet minister with the best appeal in Scotland, outranking both Starmer and Gordon Brown among Scottish swing voters."
Can Rishi identify Scotland on a map? Serious question.
I met him on a CalMac ferry last summer so I hope so
A CalMac ferry is the only place I’ve been actively asked if I want whisky in my coffee at 8 o’clock in the morning.
Did everywhere else just assume it was fine?
Haha.
It is difficult to eat healthily in Scotland. Best chipshops in the Northern Hemisphere.
Do you think? Living here, I have no criticism of them (there are some minor menu differences like 'sauce' in Edinburgh), but I haven't noticed a difference in quality of food (if that's what you mean).
On vaccine choice, if I was given one I'd go for Moderna, but since I won't I'll take whatever I'm given.
The interesting part about the mRNA vaccines is that if a booster is needed then it could conceivably be an identical one to whatever you got last time as a single jab. With the others you may need two jabs in a new vector.
I think as time passes the two main mRNA vaccines will become dominant in the developed world while the vector ones will dominate in the developing world. It's a huge win for USA Inc. to have both major mRNA vaccines and such a huge missed opportunity for UK PLC to not have pursued the Imperial mRNA one.
Not so fast. It really depends on the efficacy of the Oxford jab. Which is uncertain.
There are hints it might be as good as, or nearly as good as, the mRNAs, in which case Oxford’s cheapness and ease of storage will make it a winner everywhere.
It's not good for booster shots though because of vector immunity, mRNA vaccines have no such issue.
On vaccine choice, if I was given one I'd go for Moderna, but since I won't I'll take whatever I'm given.
The interesting part about the mRNA vaccines is that if a booster is needed then it could conceivably be an identical one to whatever you got last time as a single jab. With the others you may need two jabs in a new vector.
I think as time passes the two main mRNA vaccines will become dominant in the developed world while the vector ones will dominate in the developing world. It's a huge win for USA Inc. to have both major mRNA vaccines and such a huge missed opportunity for UK PLC to not have pursued the Imperial mRNA one.
Not so fast. It really depends on the efficacy of the Oxford jab. Which is uncertain.
There are hints it might be as good as, or nearly as good as, the mRNAs, in which case Oxford’s cheapness and ease of storage will make it a winner everywhere.
@MaxPB are you sure Imperial is not being developed? A post I saw here indicated that this wasn't the case.
Re the Police Scotland video above, watching the Sturgeon presser - Police say they were called to an ongoing house party, police had body cameras switched on, and 3 people have been charged with violent conduct, and referred to the Procurator Fiscal. I'm sure this can all be straightened out.
Clearly a number of people on here have never had to deal with challenging people in a public service context.
At least they haven't when they are trying to score political points against Sturgeon in a desperate attempt to bring every other politician down as low as their bezzie Boris.
"The Prime Minister knows that to lose Scotland would be a resigning matter. And there’s a chance he wouldn’t even be allowed to get that far: his party might not keep a leader who looked close to losing the union.
Rishi Sunak is viewed by Tory strategists as the cabinet minister with the best appeal in Scotland, outranking both Starmer and Gordon Brown among Scottish swing voters."
Can Rishi identify Scotland on a map? Serious question.
I met him on a CalMac ferry last summer so I hope so
A CalMac ferry is the only place I’ve been actively asked if I want whisky in my coffee at 8 o’clock in the morning.
Did everywhere else just assume it was fine?
Haha.
It is difficult to eat healthily in Scotland. Best chipshops in the Northern Hemisphere.
Do you think? Living here, I have no criticism of them (there are some minor menu differences like 'sauce' in Edinburgh), but I haven't noticed a difference in quality of food (if that's what you mean).
I have not done a comprehensive survey of British fish n chips. But in my relatively limited experience, Scotland tops the league.
Also, Scotland does those fried potato scallops which we also do in NZ but are depressingly absent in London.
On vaccine choice, if I was given one I'd go for Moderna, but since I won't I'll take whatever I'm given.
The interesting part about the mRNA vaccines is that if a booster is needed then it could conceivably be an identical one to whatever you got last time as a single jab. With the others you may need two jabs in a new vector.
I think as time passes the two main mRNA vaccines will become dominant in the developed world while the vector ones will dominate in the developing world. It's a huge win for USA Inc. to have both major mRNA vaccines and such a huge missed opportunity for UK PLC to not have pursued the Imperial mRNA one.
Not so fast. It really depends on the efficacy of the Oxford jab. Which is uncertain.
There are hints it might be as good as, or nearly as good as, the mRNAs, in which case Oxford’s cheapness and ease of storage will make it a winner everywhere.
@MaxPB are you sure Imperial is not being developed? A post I saw here indicated that this wasn't the case.
Miles off anything for market.
Vaccine collaboration could overcome cold chain issues for RNA-based vaccines - 07 January 2021
Imperial vaccine researchers are collaborating with industry partners to develop RNA vaccines stable at temperatures up to 40C.
The project, which will see Imperial researchers partner with UK biotech company Enesi, has the potential to overcome current cold-chain issues associated with RNA vaccines, eliminating the need to keep doses frozen at temperatures well below 0C.
Am I right in thinking we don't have any for enough months that there shouldn't in fact be any great demand for it?
Do you want the Oxford (Russell Group) vaccine or the Moderna (Poly) one?
Let the snobbery commence.
There are reports of oldies asking for “the English” vaccine....
Yes, I saw that. I see that as slightly misguided patriotism rather than nationalism.
My mother (who is almost 80) hails from Oxford, as do her side of the family, and she is very very proud of the Oxford vaccine. Of course, she wants that one.
I've told her that the vaccine is so lethal and risky she should take the first one she gets but, if she has a choice, sure, why shouldn't she pick the Oxford one?
There's nothing wrong with pride in a home-grown success.
That post needs an urgent edit, I think!
Edit: Unless you've actively seeking to be disinherited, I suppose.
I love it when people who are implacably opposed to the Republican Party try to give it lessons. Presumably to maintain the notion that everything is alright in the West and its business as usual, and what you are seeing is not a hologram.
But here's the thing. It really isn't all right.
The right is completely split in America. The party elite and the Trumpist base despise each other totally. The latter will not turn out for the former, as Georgia showed, and what follows is a hugely bitter primaries battle between the two factions ahead of 2022. When millions will not turn out again and the democrat hegemony intensifies.
Meanwhile, the Democrats will be deliberating just how much of a Jihad they want to declare on the many millions of Americans who turned out for Trump and now have zero faith in their country, its electoral system and its institutions.
Trump showed his millions of supporters a glimpse of an America they were comfortable with and where they were welcome and valuable citizens.
They are not going back to the likes of Romney. Not now. Not ever.
Trump is a symptom not a cause, and the cause is still very much there, if not more so than previously.
Agreed. But I don;t know if anyone can harness it like Trump. I quite like Kristi Noem.
Noem is a homophobic religious bigot. What is it you like about her?
Well, she bravely rejected a mask mandate for her state and - purely as an unrelated coincidence, you understand - presided over the highest Covid death rate of any state in the US. Maybe that's her special appeal.
Council recruits men with TVs strapped above their heads to walk the streets and warn public not to break Covid lockdown rules
Bradford Council announced the 'iWalkers' scheme this week but due to public backlash it has been forced to delete a Facebook post detailing its plans.
CNN - Assistant House Speaker will move next week to impeach Trump if Pence does not invoke the 25th Amendment.
I’m still undecided whether this is a good idea or not.
Me too. Creates a martyr to little practical purpose. And I know Trump theoretically has power to do damage... But practically? Pence is de facto in charge.
The big worry is that he will pardon all those who were involved on Wednesday. This creates the precedent that a President can attempt a coup with no possible downside if they lose.
CNN - Assistant House Speaker will move next week to impeach Trump if Pence does not invoke the 25th Amendment.
I’m still undecided whether this is a good idea or not.
Me too. Creates a martyr to little practical purpose. And I know Trump theoretically has power to do damage... But practically? Pence is de facto in charge.
The big worry is that he will pardon all those who were involved on Wednesday. This creates the precedent that a President can attempt a coup with no possible downside if they lose.
Hopefully they are wise and "gather evidence" until January 20.
Trump can pardon them at any time after the crime has finished: they don't have to have been charged. He doesn't even have to name them: Andrew Johnson declared "unconditionally, and without reservation, ... a full pardon and amnesty for the offence of treason against the United States, or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws ..." for all those involved in the US Civil War.
On topic: I gaze into the future of the Republican party - not too far, just a couple of years - and I see no Trump or Trumpdom there. What I do see, however and alas, are elements of the MAGA agenda still in the mix.
The million $ puzzle which imo must be solved in order to predict where the party goes is as follows - Of the 73m who voted for Donald Trump on 3/11, what are the approx weightings (adjusting for overlap) for the 4 main categories?
1. Love Trump. Lucky to have him. Helluva guy and a total one off. Just so into everything about the man. 2. Always vote Republican. It's what I am - a Republican. Cut me and I bleed tax cuts & voter suppression. 3. Not big on politics. Only care about the economy. Thought he'd done ok on that. Why change. 4. Trump? Can take him or leave him but I like his hard right national populist rhetoric and policies.
No particular order there except that I've put the last one last for a reason. I think it's the smallest.
I'd switch 2 and 1 around, the first 60 million or so for either party will just head out and vote Democrat or Republican even if was say Jesus Christ vs Adolf Hitler on the ballot.
Agreed. So -
1. Always Republican. 2. Love Trump. 3. The Economy. 4. Love MAGA.
Any views on relative weightings?
i.e. Giving each a number and forcing the sum to be 100.
Am I right in thinking we don't have any for enough months that there shouldn't in fact be any great demand for it?
Do you want the Oxford (Russell Group) vaccine or the Moderna (Poly) one?
Let the snobbery commence.
There are reports of oldies asking for “the English” vaccine....
Yes, I saw that. I see that as slightly misguided patriotism rather than nationalism.
My mother (who is almost 80) hails from Oxford, as do her side of the family, and she is very very proud of the Oxford vaccine. Of course, she wants that one.
I've told her that the vaccine is so lethal and risky she should take the first one she gets but, if she has a choice, sure, why shouldn't she pick the Oxford one?
There's nothing wrong with pride in a home-grown success.
If the question you're asking is "which country does this therapy come from?", you're asking the wrong question. If it's the only question asked, it's elevated to good old fashioned stupidity.
On vaccine choice, if I was given one I'd go for Moderna, but since I won't I'll take whatever I'm given.
The interesting part about the mRNA vaccines is that if a booster is needed then it could conceivably be an identical one to whatever you got last time as a single jab. With the others you may need two jabs in a new vector.
I think as time passes the two main mRNA vaccines will become dominant in the developed world while the vector ones will dominate in the developing world. It's a huge win for USA Inc. to have both major mRNA vaccines and such a huge missed opportunity for UK PLC to not have pursued the Imperial mRNA one.
Not so fast. It really depends on the efficacy of the Oxford jab. Which is uncertain.
There are hints it might be as good as, or nearly as good as, the mRNAs, in which case Oxford’s cheapness and ease of storage will make it a winner everywhere.
@MaxPB are you sure Imperial is not being developed? A post I saw here indicated that this wasn't the case.
Miles off anything for market.
Vaccine collaboration could overcome cold chain issues for RNA-based vaccines - 07 January 2021
Imperial vaccine researchers are collaborating with industry partners to develop RNA vaccines stable at temperatures up to 40C.
The project, which will see Imperial researchers partner with UK biotech company Enesi, has the potential to overcome current cold-chain issues associated with RNA vaccines, eliminating the need to keep doses frozen at temperatures well below 0C.
On vaccine choice, if I was given one I'd go for Moderna, but since I won't I'll take whatever I'm given.
The interesting part about the mRNA vaccines is that if a booster is needed then it could conceivably be an identical one to whatever you got last time as a single jab. With the others you may need two jabs in a new vector.
I think as time passes the two main mRNA vaccines will become dominant in the developed world while the vector ones will dominate in the developing world. It's a huge win for USA Inc. to have both major mRNA vaccines and such a huge missed opportunity for UK PLC to not have pursued the Imperial mRNA one.
Not so fast. It really depends on the efficacy of the Oxford jab. Which is uncertain.
There are hints it might be as good as, or nearly as good as, the mRNAs, in which case Oxford’s cheapness and ease of storage will make it a winner everywhere.
@MaxPB are you sure Imperial is not being developed? A post I saw here indicated that this wasn't the case.
Miles off anything for market.
Vaccine collaboration could overcome cold chain issues for RNA-based vaccines - 07 January 2021
Imperial vaccine researchers are collaborating with industry partners to develop RNA vaccines stable at temperatures up to 40C.
The project, which will see Imperial researchers partner with UK biotech company Enesi, has the potential to overcome current cold-chain issues associated with RNA vaccines, eliminating the need to keep doses frozen at temperatures well below 0C.
I love it when people who are implacably opposed to the Republican Party try to give it lessons. Presumably to maintain the notion that everything is alright in the West and its business as usual, and what you are seeing is not a hologram.
But here's the thing. It really isn't all right.
The right is completely split in America. The party elite and the Trumpist base despise each other totally. The latter will not turn out for the former, as Georgia showed, and what follows is a hugely bitter primaries battle between the two factions ahead of 2022. When millions will not turn out again and the democrat hegemony intensifies.
Meanwhile, the Democrats will be deliberating just how much of a Jihad they want to declare on the many millions of Americans who turned out for Trump and now have zero faith in their country, its electoral system and its institutions.
Trump showed his millions of supporters a glimpse of an America they were comfortable with and where they were welcome and valuable citizens.
They are not going back to the likes of Romney. Not now. Not ever.
Trump is a symptom not a cause, and the cause is still very much there, if not more so than previously.
Agreed. But I don;t know if anyone can harness it like Trump. I quite like Kristi Noem.
Noem is a homophobic religious bigot. What is it you like about her?
Again, insults not evidence. Assertions not arguments.
On vaccine choice, if I was given one I'd go for Moderna, but since I won't I'll take whatever I'm given.
The interesting part about the mRNA vaccines is that if a booster is needed then it could conceivably be an identical one to whatever you got last time as a single jab. With the others you may need two jabs in a new vector.
I think as time passes the two main mRNA vaccines will become dominant in the developed world while the vector ones will dominate in the developing world. It's a huge win for USA Inc. to have both major mRNA vaccines and such a huge missed opportunity for UK PLC to not have pursued the Imperial mRNA one.
Not so fast. It really depends on the efficacy of the Oxford jab. Which is uncertain.
There are hints it might be as good as, or nearly as good as, the mRNAs, in which case Oxford’s cheapness and ease of storage will make it a winner everywhere.
@MaxPB are you sure Imperial is not being developed? A post I saw here indicated that this wasn't the case.
Miles off anything for market.
Vaccine collaboration could overcome cold chain issues for RNA-based vaccines - 07 January 2021
Imperial vaccine researchers are collaborating with industry partners to develop RNA vaccines stable at temperatures up to 40C.
The project, which will see Imperial researchers partner with UK biotech company Enesi, has the potential to overcome current cold-chain issues associated with RNA vaccines, eliminating the need to keep doses frozen at temperatures well below 0C.
It is arguable that the next few weeks will be the most perilous for the UK since 1940
Good “morning” Mr Hyperbole. What hysterics await us today?
Can you point me to a moment more dangerous to the nation than this - economically, medically, everything-ly - SINCE 1940?
I struggle. Maybe the Cuban missile crisis?
Why "dangerous"?
We know it's going to be grim, and lots of people will die. Healthcare workers in particular will have an awful time of it. But what's the potential for surprise on the downside that even remotely compares with 1940?
Another (worse) mutation, I suppose. But it hardly seems that likely that one would emerge that would increase mortality to the point that it materially changes the game.
FPT - nuclear weapons exist to level the playing field against those with massive conventional forces, that we couldn't hope to match, and to deter nuclear blackmail against us by nuclear armed powers.
I know others have equally strong views on this, but count me out from the unilateralists please. It's an ultimate insurance policy that I'm happy to have - and pay for - and helps me sleep soundly at night.
You could sleep soundly at night if you'd paid to be surrounded by a battalion of Grenadier Guards to keep burglars out. But if it meant your children went hungry....?
There is a huge amount of "whataboutery" supporting the UK having nuclear weapons. Would someone like to give me an actual, real life, certifiable example of when they have given me cause to sleep more soundly at night?
Where my slumbers are qualitatively better is the knowledge that some ISIS commander or some Al Qaeda financier is being lit up for delivery of a smart bomb by a special forces guy in the shadows, who has the use of the latest array of technology to call upon.
I'd be very happy for the UK to be known as providing those people the bad guys should lose sleep over. Be the go-to place for the brightest and best fighting men in the world. Hell, I'd pay top dollar to recruit some of the Foreign Legion special forces guys into the team. They were some of the best close protection I've used (and that includes having used a guy from the Bravo 2 Zero patrol).
The ability to insert these into any country - and then safely extract them - would be an ultimate expression of power. And a much more effective use of defence money than the umpteen billions spent having no more than one Trident submarine on patrol at any one time.
Well, our children aren't going hungry. The cost of a few billion a year is easily absorbable within our massive government budget of many hundreds of billions. So I don't think that's a real choice. And I think the safety payback we get for it (in terms of a safe and secure space for economic growth and trade) is worth it.
I can't speak for how you sleep at night but I certainly think they are deterring Russia from taking more serious action over the Baltic States (NATO members) and also China over Taiwan. They were also useful in the first Gulf War in convincing Saddam Hussein not to use chemical or biological weapons. Of course it's difficult to prove a counterfactual where they made *the* difference - the decisive difference - because they are a strategic deterrent, not a tactical one, and such confrontations are rare precisely because they do exist. When that fails they are part of a diplomatic and military deterrent toolkit of why things don't escalate as far as they could.
I agree with you on special forces and on smart weapons. They are essential too. But I wouldn't eliminate our strategic deterrent. I think that'd be dangerous.
"The Prime Minister knows that to lose Scotland would be a resigning matter. And there’s a chance he wouldn’t even be allowed to get that far: his party might not keep a leader who looked close to losing the union.
Rishi Sunak is viewed by Tory strategists as the cabinet minister with the best appeal in Scotland, outranking both Starmer and Gordon Brown among Scottish swing voters."
Can Rishi identify Scotland on a map? Serious question.
I met him on a CalMac ferry last summer so I hope so
A CalMac ferry is the only place I’ve been actively asked if I want whisky in my coffee at 8 o’clock in the morning.
Did everywhere else just assume it was fine?
Haha.
It is difficult to eat healthily in Scotland. Best chipshops in the Northern Hemisphere.
Do you think? Living here, I have no criticism of them (there are some minor menu differences like 'sauce' in Edinburgh), but I haven't noticed a difference in quality of food (if that's what you mean).
I have not done a comprehensive survey of British fish n chips. But in my relatively limited experience, Scotland tops the league.
Also, Scotland does those fried potato scallops which we also do in NZ but are depressingly absent in London.
True, those are delicious. One thing I slightly miss from England is those big pickled onions. Hopefully that isn't perversion on a level of pineapple topped pizza.
CNN - Assistant House Speaker will move next week to impeach Trump if Pence does not invoke the 25th Amendment.
I’m still undecided whether this is a good idea or not.
Me too. Creates a martyr to little practical purpose. And I know Trump theoretically has power to do damage... But practically? Pence is de facto in charge.
The big worry is that he will pardon all those who were involved on Wednesday. This creates the precedent that a President can attempt a coup with no possible downside if they lose.
The whole unlimited pardon thing seems completely unnecessary in the first place.
If you want to keep it but remove the personal element, you could change it to the pardons also need to be approved by two former Presidents to take effect.
That would have been difficult for the first two presidents...
FPT - nuclear weapons exist to level the playing field against those with massive conventional forces, that we couldn't hope to match, and to deter nuclear blackmail against us by nuclear armed powers.
I know others have equally strong views on this, but count me out from the unilateralists please. It's an ultimate insurance policy that I'm happy to have - and pay for - and helps me sleep soundly at night.
You could sleep soundly at night if you'd paid to be surrounded by a battalion of Grenadier Guards to keep burglars out. But if it meant your children went hungry....?
There is a huge amount of "whataboutery" supporting the UK having nuclear weapons. Would someone like to give me an actual, real life, certifiable example of when they have given me cause to sleep more soundly at night?
Where my slumbers are qualitatively better is the knowledge that some ISIS commander or some Al Qaeda financier is being lit up for delivery of a smart bomb by a special forces guy in the shadows, who has the use of the latest array of technology to call upon.
I'd be very happy for the UK to be known as providing those people the bad guys should lose sleep over. Be the go-to place for the brightest and best fighting men in the world. Hell, I'd pay top dollar to recruit some of the Foreign Legion special forces guys into the team. They were some of the best close protection I've used (and that includes having used a guy from the Bravo 2 Zero patrol).
The ability to insert these into any country - and then safely extract them - would be an ultimate expression of power. And a much more effective use of defence money than the umpteen billions spent having no more than one Trident submarine on patrol at any one time.
Well, our children aren't going hungry. The cost of a few billion a year is easily absorbable within our massive government budget of many hundreds of billions. So I don't think that's a real choice. And I think the safety payback we get for it (in terms of a safe and secure space for economic growth and trade) is worth it.
I can't speak for how you sleep at night but I certainly think they are deterring Russia from taking more serious action over the Baltic States (NATO members) and also China over Taiwan. They were also useful in the first Gulf War in convincing Saddam Hussein not to use chemical or biological weapons. Of course it's difficult to prove a counterfactual where they made *the* difference - the decisive difference - because they are a strategic deterrent, not a tactical one, and such confrontations are rare precisely because they do exist. When that fails they are part of a diplomatic and military deterrent toolkit of why things don't escalate as far as they could.
I agree with you on special forces and on smart weapons. They are essential too. But I wouldn't eliminate our strategic deterrent. I think that'd be dangerous.
I'm more in the @Casino_Royale camp here. I would not wanting to be relying on the "goodwill" of China and Russia not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear UK in the case of a dispute.
Am I right in thinking we don't have any for enough months that there shouldn't in fact be any great demand for it?
Do you want the Oxford (Russell Group) vaccine or the Moderna (Poly) one?
Let the snobbery commence.
There are reports of oldies asking for “the English” vaccine....
Yes, I saw that. I see that as slightly misguided patriotism rather than nationalism.
My mother (who is almost 80) hails from Oxford, as do her side of the family, and she is very very proud of the Oxford vaccine. Of course, she wants that one.
I've told her that the vaccine is so lethal and risky she should take the first one she gets but, if she has a choice, sure, why shouldn't she pick the Oxford one?
There's nothing wrong with pride in a home-grown success.
If the question you're asking is "which country does this therapy come from?", you're asking the wrong question. If it's the only question asked, it's elevated to good old fashioned stupidity.
Indeed, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having pride in a home-grown success (with a lot of international scientists and networking involved too, of course) as well. People want to feel part of it. Those who sneer at that tend to have a problem with patriotism more broadly.
Personally, I will take the first jab I can get. But, I'm also proud of our pharmaceutical industry so would probably feel some pride if I got the Oxford one too.
FPT - nuclear weapons exist to level the playing field against those with massive conventional forces, that we couldn't hope to match, and to deter nuclear blackmail against us by nuclear armed powers.
I know others have equally strong views on this, but count me out from the unilateralists please. It's an ultimate insurance policy that I'm happy to have - and pay for - and helps me sleep soundly at night.
You could sleep soundly at night if you'd paid to be surrounded by a battalion of Grenadier Guards to keep burglars out. But if it meant your children went hungry....?
There is a huge amount of "whataboutery" supporting the UK having nuclear weapons. Would someone like to give me an actual, real life, certifiable example of when they have given me cause to sleep more soundly at night?
Where my slumbers are qualitatively better is the knowledge that some ISIS commander or some Al Qaeda financier is being lit up for delivery of a smart bomb by a special forces guy in the shadows, who has the use of the latest array of technology to call upon.
I'd be very happy for the UK to be known as providing those people the bad guys should lose sleep over. Be the go-to place for the brightest and best fighting men in the world. Hell, I'd pay top dollar to recruit some of the Foreign Legion special forces guys into the team. They were some of the best close protection I've used (and that includes having used a guy from the Bravo 2 Zero patrol).
The ability to insert these into any country - and then safely extract them - would be an ultimate expression of power. And a much more effective use of defence money than the umpteen billions spent having no more than one Trident submarine on patrol at any one time.
Well, our children aren't going hungry. The cost of a few billion a year is easily absorbable within our massive government budget of many hundreds of billions. So I don't think that's a real choice. And I think the safety payback we get for it (in terms of a safe and secure space for economic growth and trade) is worth it.
I can't speak for how you sleep at night but I certainly think they are deterring Russia from taking more serious action over the Baltic States (NATO members) and also China over Taiwan. They were also useful in the first Gulf War in convincing Saddam Hussein not to use chemical or biological weapons. Of course it's difficult to prove a counterfactual where they made *the* difference - the decisive difference - because they are a strategic deterrent, not a tactical one, and such confrontations are rare precisely because they do exist. When that fails they are part of a diplomatic and military deterrent toolkit of why things don't escalate as far as they could.
I agree with you on special forces and on smart weapons. They are essential too. But I wouldn't eliminate our strategic deterrent. I think that'd be dangerous.
I'm more in the @Casino_Royale camp here. I would not wanting to be relying on the "goodwill" of China and Russia not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear UK in the case of a dispute.
100%.
Surely the time when China could be though of a reliable partner is past. Unless you are the EU of course.
FPT - nuclear weapons exist to level the playing field against those with massive conventional forces, that we couldn't hope to match, and to deter nuclear blackmail against us by nuclear armed powers.
I know others have equally strong views on this, but count me out from the unilateralists please. It's an ultimate insurance policy that I'm happy to have - and pay for - and helps me sleep soundly at night.
You could sleep soundly at night if you'd paid to be surrounded by a battalion of Grenadier Guards to keep burglars out. But if it meant your children went hungry....?
There is a huge amount of "whataboutery" supporting the UK having nuclear weapons. Would someone like to give me an actual, real life, certifiable example of when they have given me cause to sleep more soundly at night?
Where my slumbers are qualitatively better is the knowledge that some ISIS commander or some Al Qaeda financier is being lit up for delivery of a smart bomb by a special forces guy in the shadows, who has the use of the latest array of technology to call upon.
I'd be very happy for the UK to be known as providing those people the bad guys should lose sleep over. Be the go-to place for the brightest and best fighting men in the world. Hell, I'd pay top dollar to recruit some of the Foreign Legion special forces guys into the team. They were some of the best close protection I've used (and that includes having used a guy from the Bravo 2 Zero patrol).
The ability to insert these into any country - and then safely extract them - would be an ultimate expression of power. And a much more effective use of defence money than the umpteen billions spent having no more than one Trident submarine on patrol at any one time.
Well, our children aren't going hungry. The cost of a few billion a year is easily absorbable within our massive government budget of many hundreds of billions. So I don't think that's a real choice. And I think the safety payback we get for it (in terms of a safe and secure space for economic growth and trade) is worth it.
I can't speak for how you sleep at night but I certainly think they are deterring Russia from taking more serious action over the Baltic States (NATO members) and also China over Taiwan. They were also useful in the first Gulf War in convincing Saddam Hussein not to use chemical or biological weapons. Of course it's difficult to prove a counterfactual where they made *the* difference - the decisive difference - because they are a strategic deterrent, not a tactical one, and such confrontations are rare precisely because they do exist. When that fails they are part of a diplomatic and military deterrent toolkit of why things don't escalate as far as they could.
I agree with you on special forces and on smart weapons. They are essential too. But I wouldn't eliminate our strategic deterrent. I think that'd be dangerous.
I agree with this.
I also think this is an odd week for people to be arguing that we don't need nuclear weapons because the US have them and we're unlikely to take any action that doesn't involve them.
"The Prime Minister knows that to lose Scotland would be a resigning matter. And there’s a chance he wouldn’t even be allowed to get that far: his party might not keep a leader who looked close to losing the union.
Rishi Sunak is viewed by Tory strategists as the cabinet minister with the best appeal in Scotland, outranking both Starmer and Gordon Brown among Scottish swing voters."
Can Rishi identify Scotland on a map? Serious question.
I met him on a CalMac ferry last summer so I hope so
A CalMac ferry is the only place I’ve been actively asked if I want whisky in my coffee at 8 o’clock in the morning.
Did everywhere else just assume it was fine?
Haha.
It is difficult to eat healthily in Scotland. Best chipshops in the Northern Hemisphere.
Do you think? Living here, I have no criticism of them (there are some minor menu differences like 'sauce' in Edinburgh), but I haven't noticed a difference in quality of food (if that's what you mean).
I have not done a comprehensive survey of British fish n chips. But in my relatively limited experience, Scotland tops the league.
Also, Scotland does those fried potato scallops which we also do in NZ but are depressingly absent in London.
I love it when people who are implacably opposed to the Republican Party try to give it lessons. Presumably to maintain the notion that everything is alright in the West and its business as usual, and what you are seeing is not a hologram.
But here's the thing. It really isn't all right.
The right is completely split in America. The party elite and the Trumpist base despise each other totally. The latter will not turn out for the former, as Georgia showed, and what follows is a hugely bitter primaries battle between the two factions ahead of 2022. When millions will not turn out again and the democrat hegemony intensifies.
Meanwhile, the Democrats will be deliberating just how much of a Jihad they want to declare on the many millions of Americans who turned out for Trump and now have zero faith in their country, its electoral system and its institutions.
Trump showed his millions of supporters a glimpse of an America they were comfortable with and where they were welcome and valuable citizens.
They are not going back to the likes of Romney. Not now. Not ever.
Trump is a symptom not a cause, and the cause is still very much there, if not more so than previously.
Agreed. But I don;t know if anyone can harness it like Trump. I quite like Kristi Noem.
Noem is a homophobic religious bigot. What is it you like about her?
Again, insults not evidence. Assertions not arguments.
On topic: I gaze into the future of the Republican party - not too far, just a couple of years - and I see no Trump or Trumpdom there. What I do see, however and alas, are elements of the MAGA agenda still in the mix.
The million $ puzzle which imo must be solved in order to predict where the party goes is as follows - Of the 73m who voted for Donald Trump what are the approx weightings (adjusted for overlap) for the 4 main categories?
1. Love Trump. Lucky to have him. Helluva guy and a total one off. Just so into everything about the man. 2. Always vote Republican. It's what I am - a Republican. Cut me and I bleed tax cuts & voter suppression. 3. Not big on politics. Only care about the economy. Thought he'd done ok on that. Why change. 4. Trump? Can take him or leave him but I like his hard right national populist rhetoric and policies.
No particular order there except that I've put the last one last for a reason. I think it's the smallest.
Very rough guesses:
1. 10 2. 50 3. 8 4. 5
Although 1 and 4 are largely the same category, if we're being honest.
Much obliged. This is what I'm looking for. Unadorned numbers that I can crunch thro the "Predict the Near Term Future of the GOP" model I've developed (mainly for betting purposes but also to aid my superforecasting and related punditry).
"The Prime Minister knows that to lose Scotland would be a resigning matter. And there’s a chance he wouldn’t even be allowed to get that far: his party might not keep a leader who looked close to losing the union.
Rishi Sunak is viewed by Tory strategists as the cabinet minister with the best appeal in Scotland, outranking both Starmer and Gordon Brown among Scottish swing voters."
Can Rishi identify Scotland on a map? Serious question.
I met him on a CalMac ferry last summer so I hope so
A CalMac ferry is the only place I’ve been actively asked if I want whisky in my coffee at 8 o’clock in the morning.
Did everywhere else just assume it was fine?
Haha.
It is difficult to eat healthily in Scotland. Best chipshops in the Northern Hemisphere.
Do you think? Living here, I have no criticism of them (there are some minor menu differences like 'sauce' in Edinburgh), but I haven't noticed a difference in quality of food (if that's what you mean).
I have not done a comprehensive survey of British fish n chips. But in my relatively limited experience, Scotland tops the league.
Also, Scotland does those fried potato scallops which we also do in NZ but are depressingly absent in London.
True, those are delicious. One thing I slightly miss from England is those big pickled onions. Hopefully that isn't perversion on a level of pineapple topped pizza.
My local chippy does the big onions, 10p a pop from memory. If we’re in the world of Scottish fried food, I think you just have to embrace the perviness.
I love it when people who are implacably opposed to the Republican Party try to give it lessons. Presumably to maintain the notion that everything is alright in the West and its business as usual, and what you are seeing is not a hologram.
But here's the thing. It really isn't all right.
The right is completely split in America. The party elite and the Trumpist base despise each other totally. The latter will not turn out for the former, as Georgia showed, and what follows is a hugely bitter primaries battle between the two factions ahead of 2022. When millions will not turn out again and the democrat hegemony intensifies.
Meanwhile, the Democrats will be deliberating just how much of a Jihad they want to declare on the many millions of Americans who turned out for Trump and now have zero faith in their country, its electoral system and its institutions.
Trump showed his millions of supporters a glimpse of an America they were comfortable with and where they were welcome and valuable citizens.
They are not going back to the likes of Romney. Not now. Not ever.
Trump is a symptom not a cause, and the cause is still very much there, if not more so than previously.
Agreed. But I don;t know if anyone can harness it like Trump. I quite like Kristi Noem.
Noem is a homophobic religious bigot. What is it you like about her?
Again, insults not evidence. Assertions not arguments.
"The Prime Minister knows that to lose Scotland would be a resigning matter. And there’s a chance he wouldn’t even be allowed to get that far: his party might not keep a leader who looked close to losing the union.
Rishi Sunak is viewed by Tory strategists as the cabinet minister with the best appeal, outranking both Starmer and Gordon Brown among Scottish swing voters."
Michael Gove isn't mentioned in quite the same way ...
PS Also interesting (given current wisdomn on PB) is that the Tories seem quite worried by an indicative referendum - ie not at all dismissive of it.
But of course! We had an indicative referendum here a few months ago, but it was only indicative or advisory, so the Electoral Commission gave the green light to it. If it had been a binding referendum, the Electoral Commission would never have allowed it to go ahead in the shapre it was.
Once the votes were in, the government of the day declared that it was, after all, binding; and then set about removing many of our constitutional safeguards in order to "get Brexit done". That is why we are now being dictated to by a gang of incompetents, who have no idea of the British sense of fair play.
I am sure that our Conservative friends realise that, if they can get away with holding a shabby referendum over the EU, then the SNP could do the same thing over Scottish independence. So they are now worried by the prospect of a referendum on the issue. Quite understandable.
Brexit and the UK leaving the EU was allowed by Article 50 of the EU constitution.
Scexit and Scotland leaving the UK however is illegal without Westminster approval under our unwritten constitution
So why are your Tory bosses privately accepting otherwise, if that article is correct? And it is in the Speccy not the Graun.
I presume that any sign of weakness from the Tories on the ghastly Natz issue means HYUFD resigning from the party of appeasement. Exciting times!
It is well worth a read if you haven't. Somehow, also, Mr Gove is no longer frontperson in the struggle against freedom. And the comparison used to demonstrate Mr Sunak's ultrapopularity is, tactfully, Mr Brown. Still need to see who the front gal or guy for Better Together Mk 2 is going to be.
Hurrah! There seems to be a trend (perhaps it's just a PB thing) of doom pornography, whereby every time a new 'strain' of this virus arrives it's immediately deemed to be vaccine proof.
Anyone remember the Mutant Mink? Then there was the Crafty Kentish, then the Super Saffer.
I love it when people who are implacably opposed to the Republican Party try to give it lessons. Presumably to maintain the notion that everything is alright in the West and its business as usual, and what you are seeing is not a hologram.
But here's the thing. It really isn't all right.
The right is completely split in America. The party elite and the Trumpist base despise each other totally. The latter will not turn out for the former, as Georgia showed, and what follows is a hugely bitter primaries battle between the two factions ahead of 2022. When millions will not turn out again and the democrat hegemony intensifies.
Meanwhile, the Democrats will be deliberating just how much of a Jihad they want to declare on the many millions of Americans who turned out for Trump and now have zero faith in their country, its electoral system and its institutions.
Trump showed his millions of supporters a glimpse of an America they were comfortable with and where they were welcome and valuable citizens.
They are not going back to the likes of Romney. Not now. Not ever.
Trump is a symptom not a cause, and the cause is still very much there, if not more so than previously.
Agreed. But I don;t know if anyone can harness it like Trump. I quite like Kristi Noem.
Noem is a homophobic religious bigot. What is it you like about her?
Again, insults not evidence. Assertions not arguments.
Am I right in thinking we don't have any for enough months that there shouldn't in fact be any great demand for it?
Do you want the Oxford (Russell Group) vaccine or the Moderna (Poly) one?
Let the snobbery commence.
There are reports of oldies asking for “the English” vaccine....
Yes, I saw that. I see that as slightly misguided patriotism rather than nationalism.
My mother (who is almost 80) hails from Oxford, as do her side of the family, and she is very very proud of the Oxford vaccine. Of course, she wants that one.
I've told her that the vaccine is so lethal and risky she should take the first one she gets but, if she has a choice, sure, why shouldn't she pick the Oxford one?
There's nothing wrong with pride in a home-grown success.
If the question you're asking is "which country does this therapy come from?", you're asking the wrong question. If it's the only question asked, it's elevated to good old fashioned stupidity.
Indeed, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having pride in a home-grown success (with a lot of international scientists and networking involved too, of course) as well. People want to feel part of it. Those who sneer at that tend to have a problem with patriotism more broadly.
Personally, I will take the first jab I can get. But, I'm also proud of our pharmaceutical industry so would probably feel some pride if I got the Oxford one too.
Well, good for you. It's really important to ensure you don't feel positive about the good work done by anyone beyond a certain distance away. Probably. For some reason.
It is arguable that the next few weeks will be the most perilous for the UK since 1940
Good “morning” Mr Hyperbole. What hysterics await us today?
Can you point me to a moment more dangerous to the nation than this - economically, medically, everything-ly - SINCE 1940?
I struggle. Maybe the Cuban missile crisis?
Why "dangerous"?
We know it's going to be grim, and lots of people will die. Healthcare workers in particular will have an awful time of it. But what's the potential for surprise on the downside that even remotely compares with 1940?
Another (worse) mutation, I suppose. But it hardly seems that likely that one would emerge that would increase mortality to the point that it materially changes the game.
I did say SINCE 1940. Clearly that was much more dangerous.
This is a morbid game to play but if you so desire there are several ways the next month could be calamitous
One is, yes, a mutation. We are racking up 50,000 cases a day, every case gives the virus another chance to get nastier. Imagine greater transmissibility with greater lethality... CFR of 10%... 30%...
More worrying, because more likely, is a crashed health system. It basically happened in Wuhan where CFR went up to 5-7% (no one is entirely sure) and the city came close to total collapse. This was avoided by China sealing off the city, and pouring in enormous resources - at one point Wuhan had, IIRC, 3 new medical workers for every two COVID patients
If that happens in London and the SE could we match the Chinese effort?
On topic: I gaze into the future of the Republican party - not too far, just a couple of years - and I see no Trump or Trumpdom there. What I do see, however and alas, are elements of the MAGA agenda still in the mix.
The million $ puzzle which imo must be solved in order to predict where the party goes is as follows - Of the 73m who voted for Donald Trump what are the approx weightings (adjusted for overlap) for the 4 main categories?
1. Love Trump. Lucky to have him. Helluva guy and a total one off. Just so into everything about the man. 2. Always vote Republican. It's what I am - a Republican. Cut me and I bleed tax cuts & voter suppression. 3. Not big on politics. Only care about the economy. Thought he'd done ok on that. Why change. 4. Trump? Can take him or leave him but I like his hard right national populist rhetoric and policies.
No particular order there except that I've put the last one last for a reason. I think it's the smallest.
Very rough guesses:
1. 10 2. 50 3. 8 4. 5
Although 1 and 4 are largely the same category, if we're being honest.
Much obliged. This is what I'm looking for. Unadorned numbers that I can crunch thro the "Predict the Near Term Future of the GOP" model I've developed (mainly for betting purposes but also to aid my superforecasting and related punditry).
"The Prime Minister knows that to lose Scotland would be a resigning matter. And there’s a chance he wouldn’t even be allowed to get that far: his party might not keep a leader who looked close to losing the union.
Rishi Sunak is viewed by Tory strategists as the cabinet minister with the best appeal in Scotland, outranking both Starmer and Gordon Brown among Scottish swing voters."
Can Rishi identify Scotland on a map? Serious question.
I met him on a CalMac ferry last summer so I hope so
A CalMac ferry is the only place I’ve been actively asked if I want whisky in my coffee at 8 o’clock in the morning.
Did everywhere else just assume it was fine?
Haha.
It is difficult to eat healthily in Scotland. Best chipshops in the Northern Hemisphere.
Do you think? Living here, I have no criticism of them (there are some minor menu differences like 'sauce' in Edinburgh), but I haven't noticed a difference in quality of food (if that's what you mean).
I have not done a comprehensive survey of British fish n chips. But in my relatively limited experience, Scotland tops the league.
Also, Scotland does those fried potato scallops which we also do in NZ but are depressingly absent in London.
True, those are delicious. One thing I slightly miss from England is those big pickled onions. Hopefully that isn't perversion on a level of pineapple topped pizza.
My local chippy does the big onions, 10p a pop from memory. If we’re in the world of Scottish fried food, I think you just have to embrace the perviness.
My local does pineapple pizza - and even this weird stuff called "large salad".
On topic: I gaze into the future of the Republican party - not too far, just a couple of years - and I see no Trump or Trumpdom there. What I do see, however and alas, are elements of the MAGA agenda still in the mix.
The million $ puzzle which imo must be solved in order to predict where the party goes is as follows - Of the 73m who voted for Donald Trump what are the approx weightings (adjusted for overlap) for the 4 main categories?
1. Love Trump. Lucky to have him. Helluva guy and a total one off. Just so into everything about the man. 2. Always vote Republican. It's what I am - a Republican. Cut me and I bleed tax cuts & voter suppression. 3. Not big on politics. Only care about the economy. Thought he'd done ok on that. Why change. 4. Trump? Can take him or leave him but I like his hard right national populist rhetoric and policies.
No particular order there except that I've put the last one last for a reason. I think it's the smallest.
Very rough guesses:
1. 10 2. 50 3. 8 4. 5
Although 1 and 4 are largely the same category, if we're being honest.
Much obliged. This is what I'm looking for. Unadorned numbers that I can crunch thro the "Predict the Near Term Future of the GOP" model I've developed (mainly for betting purposes but also to aid my superforecasting and related punditry).
"We have already secured an amount of doses that we need to vaccinate 380 million Europeans, and this is more than 80% of the European population [of 450 million people]," Mrs von der Leyen said.
She said other vaccine authorisations were expected in the coming weeks and months, so "Europe will have more than enough vaccine within a reliable timeframe".
She said the commission had taken the right course of action on vaccines.
"I'm convinced that when we look back at this one day we'll see, well yes, at the beginning, there was a bumpy road [but] well, that's always the case."
FPT - nuclear weapons exist to level the playing field against those with massive conventional forces, that we couldn't hope to match, and to deter nuclear blackmail against us by nuclear armed powers.
I know others have equally strong views on this, but count me out from the unilateralists please. It's an ultimate insurance policy that I'm happy to have - and pay for - and helps me sleep soundly at night.
You could sleep soundly at night if you'd paid to be surrounded by a battalion of Grenadier Guards to keep burglars out. But if it meant your children went hungry....?
There is a huge amount of "whataboutery" supporting the UK having nuclear weapons. Would someone like to give me an actual, real life, certifiable example of when they have given me cause to sleep more soundly at night?
Where my slumbers are qualitatively better is the knowledge that some ISIS commander or some Al Qaeda financier is being lit up for delivery of a smart bomb by a special forces guy in the shadows, who has the use of the latest array of technology to call upon.
I'd be very happy for the UK to be known as providing those people the bad guys should lose sleep over. Be the go-to place for the brightest and best fighting men in the world. Hell, I'd pay top dollar to recruit some of the Foreign Legion special forces guys into the team. They were some of the best close protection I've used (and that includes having used a guy from the Bravo 2 Zero patrol).
The ability to insert these into any country - and then safely extract them - would be an ultimate expression of power. And a much more effective use of defence money than the umpteen billions spent having no more than one Trident submarine on patrol at any one time.
Well, our children aren't going hungry. The cost of a few billion a year is easily absorbable within our massive government budget of many hundreds of billions. So I don't think that's a real choice. And I think the safety payback we get for it (in terms of a safe and secure space for economic growth and trade) is worth it.
I can't speak for how you sleep at night but I certainly think they are deterring Russia from taking more serious action over the Baltic States (NATO members) and also China over Taiwan. They were also useful in the first Gulf War in convincing Saddam Hussein not to use chemical or biological weapons. Of course it's difficult to prove a counterfactual where they made *the* difference - the decisive difference - because they are a strategic deterrent, not a tactical one, and such confrontations are rare precisely because they do exist. When that fails they are part of a diplomatic and military deterrent toolkit of why things don't escalate as far as they could.
I agree with you on special forces and on smart weapons. They are essential too. But I wouldn't eliminate our strategic deterrent. I think that'd be dangerous.
I'm more in the @Casino_Royale camp here. I would not wanting to be relying on the "goodwill" of China and Russia not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear UK in the case of a dispute.
But here we enter the realms of whether we would be allowed to use Trident in that event, or whether we'd find that the system had been (wisely imho) disabled by a higher power.
If you were America, and Britain got itself into a nuclear conflict with a third party, and you had the ability to shut the system down, would you do it? Or would you just let them go ahead with it in case they asked for a refund? It isn't an independent deterrent. Everyone (including Russia and China) is aware of that fact.
"The Prime Minister knows that to lose Scotland would be a resigning matter. And there’s a chance he wouldn’t even be allowed to get that far: his party might not keep a leader who looked close to losing the union.
Rishi Sunak is viewed by Tory strategists as the cabinet minister with the best appeal in Scotland, outranking both Starmer and Gordon Brown among Scottish swing voters."
Can Rishi identify Scotland on a map? Serious question.
I met him on a CalMac ferry last summer so I hope so
A CalMac ferry is the only place I’ve been actively asked if I want whisky in my coffee at 8 o’clock in the morning.
Did everywhere else just assume it was fine?
Haha.
It is difficult to eat healthily in Scotland. Best chipshops in the Northern Hemisphere.
Do you think? Living here, I have no criticism of them (there are some minor menu differences like 'sauce' in Edinburgh), but I haven't noticed a difference in quality of food (if that's what you mean).
I have not done a comprehensive survey of British fish n chips. But in my relatively limited experience, Scotland tops the league.
Also, Scotland does those fried potato scallops which we also do in NZ but are depressingly absent in London.
True, those are delicious. One thing I slightly miss from England is those big pickled onions. Hopefully that isn't perversion on a level of pineapple topped pizza.
My local chippy does the big onions, 10p a pop from memory. If we’re in the world of Scottish fried food, I think you just have to embrace the perviness.
My local does pineapple pizza - and even this weird stuff called "large salad".
Can you provide me with their details please?
Also where's that link for snitches to contact Police Scotland?
"The Prime Minister knows that to lose Scotland would be a resigning matter. And there’s a chance he wouldn’t even be allowed to get that far: his party might not keep a leader who looked close to losing the union.
Rishi Sunak is viewed by Tory strategists as the cabinet minister with the best appeal in Scotland, outranking both Starmer and Gordon Brown among Scottish swing voters."
Can Rishi identify Scotland on a map? Serious question.
I met him on a CalMac ferry last summer so I hope so
A CalMac ferry is the only place I’ve been actively asked if I want whisky in my coffee at 8 o’clock in the morning.
Did everywhere else just assume it was fine?
Haha.
It is difficult to eat healthily in Scotland. Best chipshops in the Northern Hemisphere.
Do you think? Living here, I have no criticism of them (there are some minor menu differences like 'sauce' in Edinburgh), but I haven't noticed a difference in quality of food (if that's what you mean).
I have not done a comprehensive survey of British fish n chips. But in my relatively limited experience, Scotland tops the league.
Also, Scotland does those fried potato scallops which we also do in NZ but are depressingly absent in London.
True, those are delicious. One thing I slightly miss from England is those big pickled onions. Hopefully that isn't perversion on a level of pineapple topped pizza.
My local chippy does the big onions, 10p a pop from memory. If we’re in the world of Scottish fried food, I think you just have to embrace the perviness.
My local does pineapple pizza - and even this weird stuff called "large salad".
Can you provide me with their details please?
Also where's that link for snitches to contact Police Scotland?
Sorry chum, it's consistent with SG policy, well the salad bit is. It's not dipped in bastter and deep-fried. (At least I hope not - but I haven't tried it. Mind, if you did that you could call it teriyaki, serve it with horseradish and charge 3x.)
On topic, this article/twitter thread is a must read to understand Trumpism.
twitter.com/bellingcat/status/1347426236218400769
Obama to Trump...sounds like Plato's journey from Blair to Trumpism.
Social media is a cancer.
How can someone go from backing Blair/Obama to thinking all left wing politicians are paedos funded by George Soros and wanting to wipe out all white Christian people?
"We have already secured an amount of doses that we need to vaccinate 380 million Europeans, and this is more than 80% of the European population [of 450 million people]," Mrs von der Leyen said.
She said other vaccine authorisations were expected in the coming weeks and months, so "Europe will have more than enough vaccine within a reliable timeframe".
She said the commission had taken the right course of action on vaccines.
"I'm convinced that when we look back at this one day we'll see, well yes, at the beginning, there was a bumpy road [but] well, that's always the case."
It's just ridiculous. They got it wrong, they should just admit it.
Am I right in thinking we don't have any for enough months that there shouldn't in fact be any great demand for it?
Do you want the Oxford (Russell Group) vaccine or the Moderna (Poly) one?
Let the snobbery commence.
There are reports of oldies asking for “the English” vaccine....
Yes, I saw that. I see that as slightly misguided patriotism rather than nationalism.
My mother (who is almost 80) hails from Oxford, as do her side of the family, and she is very very proud of the Oxford vaccine. Of course, she wants that one.
I've told her that the vaccine is so lethal and risky she should take the first one she gets but, if she has a choice, sure, why shouldn't she pick the Oxford one?
There's nothing wrong with pride in a home-grown success.
Guernsey COVID vaccine briefing “you’ll take what you’re given.”
Am I right in thinking we don't have any for enough months that there shouldn't in fact be any great demand for it?
Do you want the Oxford (Russell Group) vaccine or the Moderna (Poly) one?
Let the snobbery commence.
There are reports of oldies asking for “the English” vaccine....
Yes, I saw that. I see that as slightly misguided patriotism rather than nationalism.
My mother (who is almost 80) hails from Oxford, as do her side of the family, and she is very very proud of the Oxford vaccine. Of course, she wants that one.
I've told her that the vaccine is so lethal and risky she should take the first one she gets but, if she has a choice, sure, why shouldn't she pick the Oxford one?
There's nothing wrong with pride in a home-grown success.
If the question you're asking is "which country does this therapy come from?", you're asking the wrong question. If it's the only question asked, it's elevated to good old fashioned stupidity.
Indeed, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having pride in a home-grown success (with a lot of international scientists and networking involved too, of course) as well. People want to feel part of it. Those who sneer at that tend to have a problem with patriotism more broadly.
Personally, I will take the first jab I can get. But, I'm also proud of our pharmaceutical industry so would probably feel some pride if I got the Oxford one too.
The Oxford vaccine is the product of the UK's world class university-based R&D sector. We should be very proud of it. Outside of the US, it is the best there is. We also need to make sure it is looked after and further nurtured. It is absolutely not something we should take for granted. The traditional UK brain drain came to an end as the result of deliberate policy. For me, if we are serious about levelling-up, universities would be ideal to build around as they are in all parts of the country. Give investment in university R&D substantial tax breaks, enable patent creation and tech transfer, create spin-outs, build hubs.
FPT - nuclear weapons exist to level the playing field against those with massive conventional forces, that we couldn't hope to match, and to deter nuclear blackmail against us by nuclear armed powers.
I know others have equally strong views on this, but count me out from the unilateralists please. It's an ultimate insurance policy that I'm happy to have - and pay for - and helps me sleep soundly at night.
You could sleep soundly at night if you'd paid to be surrounded by a battalion of Grenadier Guards to keep burglars out. But if it meant your children went hungry....?
There is a huge amount of "whataboutery" supporting the UK having nuclear weapons. Would someone like to give me an actual, real life, certifiable example of when they have given me cause to sleep more soundly at night?
Where my slumbers are qualitatively better is the knowledge that some ISIS commander or some Al Qaeda financier is being lit up for delivery of a smart bomb by a special forces guy in the shadows, who has the use of the latest array of technology to call upon.
I'd be very happy for the UK to be known as providing those people the bad guys should lose sleep over. Be the go-to place for the brightest and best fighting men in the world. Hell, I'd pay top dollar to recruit some of the Foreign Legion special forces guys into the team. They were some of the best close protection I've used (and that includes having used a guy from the Bravo 2 Zero patrol).
The ability to insert these into any country - and then safely extract them - would be an ultimate expression of power. And a much more effective use of defence money than the umpteen billions spent having no more than one Trident submarine on patrol at any one time.
Well, our children aren't going hungry. The cost of a few billion a year is easily absorbable within our massive government budget of many hundreds of billions. So I don't think that's a real choice. And I think the safety payback we get for it (in terms of a safe and secure space for economic growth and trade) is worth it.
I can't speak for how you sleep at night but I certainly think they are deterring Russia from taking more serious action over the Baltic States (NATO members) and also China over Taiwan. They were also useful in the first Gulf War in convincing Saddam Hussein not to use chemical or biological weapons. Of course it's difficult to prove a counterfactual where they made *the* difference - the decisive difference - because they are a strategic deterrent, not a tactical one, and such confrontations are rare precisely because they do exist. When that fails they are part of a diplomatic and military deterrent toolkit of why things don't escalate as far as they could.
I agree with you on special forces and on smart weapons. They are essential too. But I wouldn't eliminate our strategic deterrent. I think that'd be dangerous.
I'm more in the @Casino_Royale camp here. I would not wanting to be relying on the "goodwill" of China and Russia not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear UK in the case of a dispute.
But here we enter the realms of whether we would be allowed to use Trident in that event, or whether we'd find that the system had been (wisely imho) disabled by a higher power.
If you were America, and Britain got itself into a nuclear conflict with a third party, and you had the ability to shut the system down, would you do it? Or would you just let them go ahead with it in case they asked for a refund? It isn't an independent deterrent. Everyone (including Russia and China) is aware of that fact.
It'sd not as if they were Blue Streak missiles launched from North Norfolk silos which could be traced back to the perpetrators. A SLBM is by definition untraceable and launchable from any wet bit on the map within range, and what's a chap to think if Trident-type trajectories come at him?
"The Prime Minister knows that to lose Scotland would be a resigning matter. And there’s a chance he wouldn’t even be allowed to get that far: his party might not keep a leader who looked close to losing the union.
Rishi Sunak is viewed by Tory strategists as the cabinet minister with the best appeal in Scotland, outranking both Starmer and Gordon Brown among Scottish swing voters."
Can Rishi identify Scotland on a map? Serious question.
I met him on a CalMac ferry last summer so I hope so
A CalMac ferry is the only place I’ve been actively asked if I want whisky in my coffee at 8 o’clock in the morning.
Did everywhere else just assume it was fine?
Haha.
It is difficult to eat healthily in Scotland. Best chipshops in the Northern Hemisphere.
Do you think? Living here, I have no criticism of them (there are some minor menu differences like 'sauce' in Edinburgh), but I haven't noticed a difference in quality of food (if that's what you mean).
I have not done a comprehensive survey of British fish n chips. But in my relatively limited experience, Scotland tops the league.
Also, Scotland does those fried potato scallops which we also do in NZ but are depressingly absent in London.
True, those are delicious. One thing I slightly miss from England is those big pickled onions. Hopefully that isn't perversion on a level of pineapple topped pizza.
My local chippy does the big onions, 10p a pop from memory. If we’re in the world of Scottish fried food, I think you just have to embrace the perviness.
My local does pineapple pizza - and even this weird stuff called "large salad".
Call their bluff. I bet their salad is "off today...."
"The Prime Minister knows that to lose Scotland would be a resigning matter. And there’s a chance he wouldn’t even be allowed to get that far: his party might not keep a leader who looked close to losing the union.
Rishi Sunak is viewed by Tory strategists as the cabinet minister with the best appeal in Scotland, outranking both Starmer and Gordon Brown among Scottish swing voters."
Can Rishi identify Scotland on a map? Serious question.
I met him on a CalMac ferry last summer so I hope so
A CalMac ferry is the only place I’ve been actively asked if I want whisky in my coffee at 8 o’clock in the morning.
Did everywhere else just assume it was fine?
Haha.
It is difficult to eat healthily in Scotland. Best chipshops in the Northern Hemisphere.
Do you think? Living here, I have no criticism of them (there are some minor menu differences like 'sauce' in Edinburgh), but I haven't noticed a difference in quality of food (if that's what you mean).
I have not done a comprehensive survey of British fish n chips. But in my relatively limited experience, Scotland tops the league.
Also, Scotland does those fried potato scallops which we also do in NZ but are depressingly absent in London.
True, those are delicious. One thing I slightly miss from England is those big pickled onions. Hopefully that isn't perversion on a level of pineapple topped pizza.
My local chippy does the big onions, 10p a pop from memory. If we’re in the world of Scottish fried food, I think you just have to embrace the perviness.
My local does pineapple pizza - and even this weird stuff called "large salad".
Call their bluff. I bet their salad is "off today...."
On topic: I gaze into the future of the Republican party - not too far, just a couple of years - and I see no Trump or Trumpdom there. What I do see, however and alas, are elements of the MAGA agenda still in the mix.
The million $ puzzle which imo must be solved in order to predict where the party goes is as follows - Of the 73m who voted for Donald Trump what are the approx weightings (adjusted for overlap) for the 4 main categories?
1. Love Trump. Lucky to have him. Helluva guy and a total one off. Just so into everything about the man. 2. Always vote Republican. It's what I am - a Republican. Cut me and I bleed tax cuts & voter suppression. 3. Not big on politics. Only care about the economy. Thought he'd done ok on that. Why change. 4. Trump? Can take him or leave him but I like his hard right national populist rhetoric and policies.
No particular order there except that I've put the last one last for a reason. I think it's the smallest.
Very rough guesses:
1. 10 2. 50 3. 8 4. 5
Although 1 and 4 are largely the same category, if we're being honest.
Much obliged. This is what I'm looking for. Unadorned numbers that I can crunch thro the "Predict the Near Term Future of the GOP" model I've developed (mainly for betting purposes but also to aid my superforecasting and related punditry).
On topic, this article/twitter thread is a must read to understand Trumpism.
twitter.com/bellingcat/status/1347426236218400769
Obama to Trump...sounds like Plato's journey from Blair to Trumpism.
Social media is a cancer.
How can someone go from backing Blair/Obama to thinking all left wing politicians are paedos funded by George Soros and wanting to wipe out all white Christian people?
FPT - nuclear weapons exist to level the playing field against those with massive conventional forces, that we couldn't hope to match, and to deter nuclear blackmail against us by nuclear armed powers.
I know others have equally strong views on this, but count me out from the unilateralists please. It's an ultimate insurance policy that I'm happy to have - and pay for - and helps me sleep soundly at night.
You could sleep soundly at night if you'd paid to be surrounded by a battalion of Grenadier Guards to keep burglars out. But if it meant your children went hungry....?
There is a huge amount of "whataboutery" supporting the UK having nuclear weapons. Would someone like to give me an actual, real life, certifiable example of when they have given me cause to sleep more soundly at night?
Where my slumbers are qualitatively better is the knowledge that some ISIS commander or some Al Qaeda financier is being lit up for delivery of a smart bomb by a special forces guy in the shadows, who has the use of the latest array of technology to call upon.
I'd be very happy for the UK to be known as providing those people the bad guys should lose sleep over. Be the go-to place for the brightest and best fighting men in the world. Hell, I'd pay top dollar to recruit some of the Foreign Legion special forces guys into the team. They were some of the best close protection I've used (and that includes having used a guy from the Bravo 2 Zero patrol).
The ability to insert these into any country - and then safely extract them - would be an ultimate expression of power. And a much more effective use of defence money than the umpteen billions spent having no more than one Trident submarine on patrol at any one time.
Well, our children aren't going hungry. The cost of a few billion a year is easily absorbable within our massive government budget of many hundreds of billions. So I don't think that's a real choice. And I think the safety payback we get for it (in terms of a safe and secure space for economic growth and trade) is worth it.
I can't speak for how you sleep at night but I certainly think they are deterring Russia from taking more serious action over the Baltic States (NATO members) and also China over Taiwan. They were also useful in the first Gulf War in convincing Saddam Hussein not to use chemical or biological weapons. Of course it's difficult to prove a counterfactual where they made *the* difference - the decisive difference - because they are a strategic deterrent, not a tactical one, and such confrontations are rare precisely because they do exist. When that fails they are part of a diplomatic and military deterrent toolkit of why things don't escalate as far as they could.
I agree with you on special forces and on smart weapons. They are essential too. But I wouldn't eliminate our strategic deterrent. I think that'd be dangerous.
I'm more in the @Casino_Royale camp here. I would not wanting to be relying on the "goodwill" of China and Russia not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear UK in the case of a dispute.
But here we enter the realms of whether we would be allowed to use Trident in that event, or whether we'd find that the system had been (wisely imho) disabled by a higher power.
If you were America, and Britain got itself into a nuclear conflict with a third party, and you had the ability to shut the system down, would you do it? Or would you just let them go ahead with it in case they asked for a refund? It isn't an independent deterrent. Everyone (including Russia and China) is aware of that fact.
I’ve read convincing arguments that the USA has ensured the UK nukes are genuinely independent in terms of use, because that gives America more leverage globally - if America’s closest ally is highly armed with nukes, then any foe of America has to factor that in to their military strategy, making any planned attack on the West/USA much more complex and unpredictable
Am I right in thinking we don't have any for enough months that there shouldn't in fact be any great demand for it?
Do you want the Oxford (Russell Group) vaccine or the Moderna (Poly) one?
Let the snobbery commence.
There are reports of oldies asking for “the English” vaccine....
Yes, I saw that. I see that as slightly misguided patriotism rather than nationalism.
My mother (who is almost 80) hails from Oxford, as do her side of the family, and she is very very proud of the Oxford vaccine. Of course, she wants that one.
I've told her that the vaccine is so lethal and risky she should take the first one she gets but, if she has a choice, sure, why shouldn't she pick the Oxford one?
There's nothing wrong with pride in a home-grown success.
If the question you're asking is "which country does this therapy come from?", you're asking the wrong question. If it's the only question asked, it's elevated to good old fashioned stupidity.
Indeed, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having pride in a home-grown success (with a lot of international scientists and networking involved too, of course) as well. People want to feel part of it. Those who sneer at that tend to have a problem with patriotism more broadly.
Personally, I will take the first jab I can get. But, I'm also proud of our pharmaceutical industry so would probably feel some pride if I got the Oxford one too.
The Oxford vaccine is the product of the UK's world class university-based R&D sector. We should be very proud of it. Outside of the US, it is the best there is. We also need to make sure it is looked after and further nurtured. It is absolutely not something we should take for granted. The traditional UK brain drain came to an end as the result of deliberate policy. For me, if we are serious about levelling-up, universities would be ideal to build around as they are in all parts of the country. Give investment in university R&D substantial tax breaks, enable patent creation and tech transfer, create spin-outs, build hubs.
A rare point of agreement. We're great at research, crap at actually monetising it.
"We have already secured an amount of doses that we need to vaccinate 380 million Europeans, and this is more than 80% of the European population [of 450 million people]," Mrs von der Leyen said.
She said other vaccine authorisations were expected in the coming weeks and months, so "Europe will have more than enough vaccine within a reliable timeframe".
She said the commission had taken the right course of action on vaccines.
"I'm convinced that when we look back at this one day we'll see, well yes, at the beginning, there was a bumpy road [but] well, that's always the case."
"It has been a huge triumph for the EU compared to the rest of the world and especially the UK"...is one of a mutltitude of tweets Scott et al are still waiting...and waiting...and waiting...to post...
Mr. Eagles, I do rather miss earlier days of the internet when there were more forums on specific subjects and no social media giants. I know the former still exist, but still.
Worth adding that mainstream broadcast media has declined continuously, gradually, over the years (excepting at ITV where it fell off a cliff when they made Bradby anchor and Peston political editor).
Am I right in thinking we don't have any for enough months that there shouldn't in fact be any great demand for it?
Do you want the Oxford (Russell Group) vaccine or the Moderna (Poly) one?
Let the snobbery commence.
There are reports of oldies asking for “the English” vaccine....
Yes, I saw that. I see that as slightly misguided patriotism rather than nationalism.
My mother (who is almost 80) hails from Oxford, as do her side of the family, and she is very very proud of the Oxford vaccine. Of course, she wants that one.
I've told her that the vaccine is so lethal and risky she should take the first one she gets but, if she has a choice, sure, why shouldn't she pick the Oxford one?
There's nothing wrong with pride in a home-grown success.
If the question you're asking is "which country does this therapy come from?", you're asking the wrong question. If it's the only question asked, it's elevated to good old fashioned stupidity.
Indeed, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having pride in a home-grown success (with a lot of international scientists and networking involved too, of course) as well. People want to feel part of it. Those who sneer at that tend to have a problem with patriotism more broadly.
Personally, I will take the first jab I can get. But, I'm also proud of our pharmaceutical industry so would probably feel some pride if I got the Oxford one too.
The Oxford vaccine is the product of the UK's world class university-based R&D sector. We should be very proud of it. Outside of the US, it is the best there is. We also need to make sure it is looked after and further nurtured. It is absolutely not something we should take for granted. The traditional UK brain drain came to an end as the result of deliberate policy. For me, if we are serious about levelling-up, universities would be ideal to build around as they are in all parts of the country. Give investment in university R&D substantial tax breaks, enable patent creation and tech transfer, create spin-outs, build hubs.
Actually, COVID has exposed we need to do a lot more and dropping behind. Oxford have made a vaccine based on old established tech, fine. Pfizer and Moderna have produced one based on cutting edge tech that has many advantages. Imperial are miles behind with the similar tech.
"We have already secured an amount of doses that we need to vaccinate 380 million Europeans, and this is more than 80% of the European population [of 450 million people]," Mrs von der Leyen said.
She said other vaccine authorisations were expected in the coming weeks and months, so "Europe will have more than enough vaccine within a reliable timeframe".
She said the commission had taken the right course of action on vaccines.
"I'm convinced that when we look back at this one day we'll see, well yes, at the beginning, there was a bumpy road [but] well, that's always the case."
It's just ridiculous. They got it wrong, they should just admit it.
In her 380 million doses is she counting vaccines like Sanofi that haven't completed PIII trials and may not even end up getting approval?
On topic: I gaze into the future of the Republican party - not too far, just a couple of years - and I see no Trump or Trumpdom there. What I do see, however and alas, are elements of the MAGA agenda still in the mix.
The million $ puzzle which imo must be solved in order to predict where the party goes is as follows - Of the 73m who voted for Donald Trump on 3/11, what are the approx weightings (adjusting for overlap) for the 4 main categories?
1. Love Trump. Lucky to have him. Helluva guy and a total one off. Just so into everything about the man. 2. Always vote Republican. It's what I am - a Republican. Cut me and I bleed tax cuts & voter suppression. 3. Not big on politics. Only care about the economy. Thought he'd done ok on that. Why change. 4. Trump? Can take him or leave him but I like his hard right national populist rhetoric and policies.
No particular order there except that I've put the last one last for a reason. I think it's the smallest.
I'd switch 2 and 1 around, the first 60 million or so for either party will just head out and vote Democrat or Republican even if was say Jesus Christ vs Adolf Hitler on the ballot.
This is where you’d need AV, since if Americans were forced to choose between people whose views led to millions of deaths during the last millennium, Stalin should surely be on the ballot?
"The Prime Minister knows that to lose Scotland would be a resigning matter. And there’s a chance he wouldn’t even be allowed to get that far: his party might not keep a leader who looked close to losing the union.
Rishi Sunak is viewed by Tory strategists as the cabinet minister with the best appeal, outranking both Starmer and Gordon Brown among Scottish swing voters."
Michael Gove isn't mentioned in quite the same way ...
PS Also interesting (given current wisdomn on PB) is that the Tories seem quite worried by an indicative referendum - ie not at all dismissive of it.
But of course! We had an indicative referendum here a few months ago, but it was only indicative or advisory, so the Electoral Commission gave the green light to it. If it had been a binding referendum, the Electoral Commission would never have allowed it to go ahead in the shapre it was.
Once the votes were in, the government of the day declared that it was, after all, binding; and then set about removing many of our constitutional safeguards in order to "get Brexit done". That is why we are now being dictated to by a gang of incompetents, who have no idea of the British sense of fair play.
I am sure that our Conservative friends realise that, if they can get away with holding a shabby referendum over the EU, then the SNP could do the same thing over Scottish independence. So they are now worried by the prospect of a referendum on the issue. Quite understandable.
Brexit and the UK leaving the EU was allowed by Article 50 of the EU constitution.
Scexit and Scotland leaving the UK however is illegal without Westminster approval under our unwritten constitution
So why are your Tory bosses privately accepting otherwise, if that article is correct? And it is in the Speccy not the Graun.
I presume that any sign of weakness from the Tories on the ghastly Natz issue means HYUFD resigning from the party of appeasement. Exciting times!
It is well worth a read if you haven't. Somehow, also, Mr Gove is no longer frontperson in the struggle against freedom. And the comparison used to demonstrate Mr Sunak's ultrapopularity is, tactfully, Mr Brown. Still need to see who the front gal or guy for Better Together Mk 2 is going to be.
This is worth reading too, lads. Alex Bell, former spinner for Big Alex. Maybe Boris will just say no. Why would he say yes?
I love it when people who are implacably opposed to the Republican Party try to give it lessons. Presumably to maintain the notion that everything is alright in the West and its business as usual, and what you are seeing is not a hologram.
But here's the thing. It really isn't all right.
The right is completely split in America. The party elite and the Trumpist base despise each other totally. The latter will not turn out for the former, as Georgia showed, and what follows is a hugely bitter primaries battle between the two factions ahead of 2022. When millions will not turn out again and the democrat hegemony intensifies.
Meanwhile, the Democrats will be deliberating just how much of a Jihad they want to declare on the many millions of Americans who turned out for Trump and now have zero faith in their country, its electoral system and its institutions.
Trump showed his millions of supporters a glimpse of an America they were comfortable with and where they were welcome and valuable citizens.
They are not going back to the likes of Romney. Not now. Not ever.
Trump is a symptom not a cause, and the cause is still very much there, if not more so than previously.
Agreed. But I don;t know if anyone can harness it like Trump. I quite like Kristi Noem.
Noem is a homophobic religious bigot. What is it you like about her?
I like her videos promoting SD as a tourist destination. I had a great time there in 2019
FPT - nuclear weapons exist to level the playing field against those with massive conventional forces, that we couldn't hope to match, and to deter nuclear blackmail against us by nuclear armed powers.
I know others have equally strong views on this, but count me out from the unilateralists please. It's an ultimate insurance policy that I'm happy to have - and pay for - and helps me sleep soundly at night.
You could sleep soundly at night if you'd paid to be surrounded by a battalion of Grenadier Guards to keep burglars out. But if it meant your children went hungry....?
There is a huge amount of "whataboutery" supporting the UK having nuclear weapons. Would someone like to give me an actual, real life, certifiable example of when they have given me cause to sleep more soundly at night?
Where my slumbers are qualitatively better is the knowledge that some ISIS commander or some Al Qaeda financier is being lit up for delivery of a smart bomb by a special forces guy in the shadows, who has the use of the latest array of technology to call upon.
I'd be very happy for the UK to be known as providing those people the bad guys should lose sleep over. Be the go-to place for the brightest and best fighting men in the world. Hell, I'd pay top dollar to recruit some of the Foreign Legion special forces guys into the team. They were some of the best close protection I've used (and that includes having used a guy from the Bravo 2 Zero patrol).
The ability to insert these into any country - and then safely extract them - would be an ultimate expression of power. And a much more effective use of defence money than the umpteen billions spent having no more than one Trident submarine on patrol at any one time.
Well, our children aren't going hungry. The cost of a few billion a year is easily absorbable within our massive government budget of many hundreds of billions. So I don't think that's a real choice. And I think the safety payback we get for it (in terms of a safe and secure space for economic growth and trade) is worth it.
I can't speak for how you sleep at night but I certainly think they are deterring Russia from taking more serious action over the Baltic States (NATO members) and also China over Taiwan. They were also useful in the first Gulf War in convincing Saddam Hussein not to use chemical or biological weapons. Of course it's difficult to prove a counterfactual where they made *the* difference - the decisive difference - because they are a strategic deterrent, not a tactical one, and such confrontations are rare precisely because they do exist. When that fails they are part of a diplomatic and military deterrent toolkit of why things don't escalate as far as they could.
I agree with you on special forces and on smart weapons. They are essential too. But I wouldn't eliminate our strategic deterrent. I think that'd be dangerous.
I'm more in the @Casino_Royale camp here. I would not wanting to be relying on the "goodwill" of China and Russia not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear UK in the case of a dispute.
But here we enter the realms of whether we would be allowed to use Trident in that event, or whether we'd find that the system had been (wisely imho) disabled by a higher power.
If you were America, and Britain got itself into a nuclear conflict with a third party, and you had the ability to shut the system down, would you do it? Or would you just let them go ahead with it in case they asked for a refund? It isn't an independent deterrent. Everyone (including Russia and China) is aware of that fact.
It'sd not as if they were Blue Streak missiles launched from North Norfolk silos which could be traced back to the perpetrators. A SLBM is by definition untraceable and launchable from any wet bit on the map within range, and what's a chap to think if Trident-type trajectories come at him?
There is no US "off switch" for Trident. The claims that there are seem to be of the "but there must be" variety.
US policy on nuclear weapons and allies is interesting. Essentially, it is better to have them inside the tent pissing out, rather than the reverse. Hence the current comedy about Typhoon and it's ability (or not) to carry US nuclear weapons. Which is actually required.....
"We have already secured an amount of doses that we need to vaccinate 380 million Europeans, and this is more than 80% of the European population [of 450 million people]," Mrs von der Leyen said.
She said other vaccine authorisations were expected in the coming weeks and months, so "Europe will have more than enough vaccine within a reliable timeframe".
She said the commission had taken the right course of action on vaccines.
"I'm convinced that when we look back at this one day we'll see, well yes, at the beginning, there was a bumpy road [but] well, that's always the case."
"It has been a huge triumph for the EU compared to the rest of the world and especially the UK"...is one of a mutltitude of tweets Scott et al are still waiting...and waiting...and waiting...to post...
He's not even waiting, there's already been a few times he's unthinkingly posted Tweets eg about how much better EU procurement is because its pennies a dose cheaper even if months later.
Never defends it once he does share it and gets called out.
"We have already secured an amount of doses that we need to vaccinate 380 million Europeans, and this is more than 80% of the European population [of 450 million people]," Mrs von der Leyen said.
She said other vaccine authorisations were expected in the coming weeks and months, so "Europe will have more than enough vaccine within a reliable timeframe".
She said the commission had taken the right course of action on vaccines.
"I'm convinced that when we look back at this one day we'll see, well yes, at the beginning, there was a bumpy road [but] well, that's always the case."
It's just ridiculous. They got it wrong, they should just admit it.
In her 380 million doses is she counting vaccines like Sanofi that haven't completed PIII trials and may not even end up getting approval?
No I think they now have deals in place with Pfizer and Moderna for that many. But they are back of the queue....well not front of it. So a lot of it is coming Q2, Q3, Q4 and beyond.
Am I right in thinking we don't have any for enough months that there shouldn't in fact be any great demand for it?
Do you want the Oxford (Russell Group) vaccine or the Moderna (Poly) one?
Let the snobbery commence.
There are reports of oldies asking for “the English” vaccine....
Yes, I saw that. I see that as slightly misguided patriotism rather than nationalism.
My mother (who is almost 80) hails from Oxford, as do her side of the family, and she is very very proud of the Oxford vaccine. Of course, she wants that one.
I've told her that the vaccine is so lethal and risky she should take the first one she gets but, if she has a choice, sure, why shouldn't she pick the Oxford one?
There's nothing wrong with pride in a home-grown success.
If the question you're asking is "which country does this therapy come from?", you're asking the wrong question. If it's the only question asked, it's elevated to good old fashioned stupidity.
Indeed, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having pride in a home-grown success (with a lot of international scientists and networking involved too, of course) as well. People want to feel part of it. Those who sneer at that tend to have a problem with patriotism more broadly.
Personally, I will take the first jab I can get. But, I'm also proud of our pharmaceutical industry so would probably feel some pride if I got the Oxford one too.
The Oxford vaccine is the product of the UK's world class university-based R&D sector. We should be very proud of it. Outside of the US, it is the best there is. We also need to make sure it is looked after and further nurtured. It is absolutely not something we should take for granted. The traditional UK brain drain came to an end as the result of deliberate policy. For me, if we are serious about levelling-up, universities would be ideal to build around as they are in all parts of the country. Give investment in university R&D substantial tax breaks, enable patent creation and tech transfer, create spin-outs, build hubs.
Actually, COVID has exposed we need to do a lot more and dropping behind. Oxford have made a vaccine based on old established tech, fine. Pfizer and Moderna have produced one based on cutting edge tech that has many advantages. Imperial are miles behind with the similar tech.
The problem is that Imperial is a university, the tech should have been spun out into a new company with government backing and protection from being bought by a foreign company/state or any kind of overseas IP transfer for a period of 5 years at least. We need to be so much better at monetising our research.
Am I right in thinking we don't have any for enough months that there shouldn't in fact be any great demand for it?
Do you want the Oxford (Russell Group) vaccine or the Moderna (Poly) one?
Let the snobbery commence.
There are reports of oldies asking for “the English” vaccine....
Yes, I saw that. I see that as slightly misguided patriotism rather than nationalism.
My mother (who is almost 80) hails from Oxford, as do her side of the family, and she is very very proud of the Oxford vaccine. Of course, she wants that one.
I've told her that the vaccine is so lethal and risky she should take the first one she gets but, if she has a choice, sure, why shouldn't she pick the Oxford one?
There's nothing wrong with pride in a home-grown success.
If the question you're asking is "which country does this therapy come from?", you're asking the wrong question. If it's the only question asked, it's elevated to good old fashioned stupidity.
Indeed, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having pride in a home-grown success (with a lot of international scientists and networking involved too, of course) as well. People want to feel part of it. Those who sneer at that tend to have a problem with patriotism more broadly.
Personally, I will take the first jab I can get. But, I'm also proud of our pharmaceutical industry so would probably feel some pride if I got the Oxford one too.
The Oxford vaccine is the product of the UK's world class university-based R&D sector. We should be very proud of it. Outside of the US, it is the best there is. We also need to make sure it is looked after and further nurtured. It is absolutely not something we should take for granted. The traditional UK brain drain came to an end as the result of deliberate policy. For me, if we are serious about levelling-up, universities would be ideal to build around as they are in all parts of the country. Give investment in university R&D substantial tax breaks, enable patent creation and tech transfer, create spin-outs, build hubs.
Actually, COVID has exposed we need to do a lot more and dropping behind. Oxford have made a vaccine based on old established tech, fine. Pfizer and Moderna have produced one based on cutting edge tech that has many advantages. Imperial are miles behind with the similar tech.
It's not just life sciences. We are very strong across the board. The Oxford vaccine based on established tech is a triumph because it allows for easier, quicker distribution.
Am I right in thinking we don't have any for enough months that there shouldn't in fact be any great demand for it?
Do you want the Oxford (Russell Group) vaccine or the Moderna (Poly) one?
Let the snobbery commence.
There are reports of oldies asking for “the English” vaccine....
Yes, I saw that. I see that as slightly misguided patriotism rather than nationalism.
My mother (who is almost 80) hails from Oxford, as do her side of the family, and she is very very proud of the Oxford vaccine. Of course, she wants that one.
I've told her that the vaccine is so lethal and risky she should take the first one she gets but, if she has a choice, sure, why shouldn't she pick the Oxford one?
There's nothing wrong with pride in a home-grown success.
If the question you're asking is "which country does this therapy come from?", you're asking the wrong question. If it's the only question asked, it's elevated to good old fashioned stupidity.
Indeed, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having pride in a home-grown success (with a lot of international scientists and networking involved too, of course) as well. People want to feel part of it. Those who sneer at that tend to have a problem with patriotism more broadly.
Personally, I will take the first jab I can get. But, I'm also proud of our pharmaceutical industry so would probably feel some pride if I got the Oxford one too.
The Oxford vaccine is the product of the UK's world class university-based R&D sector. We should be very proud of it. Outside of the US, it is the best there is. We also need to make sure it is looked after and further nurtured. It is absolutely not something we should take for granted. The traditional UK brain drain came to an end as the result of deliberate policy. For me, if we are serious about levelling-up, universities would be ideal to build around as they are in all parts of the country. Give investment in university R&D substantial tax breaks, enable patent creation and tech transfer, create spin-outs, build hubs.
Actually, COVID has exposed we need to do a lot more and dropping behind. Oxford have made a vaccine based on old established tech, fine. Pfizer and Moderna have produced one based on cutting edge tech that has many advantages. Imperial are miles behind with the similar tech.
I really don't think that last statement is true. Imperial is one of the perennial forces at the annual iGEM jamboree (synthetic biology), and generally outperforms all-comers from the US (China and Germany are the only two countries that could be considered more powerful at iGEM).
Where the US is dominant is creating biotech start-ups from the graduates of its top universities. Wander around the MIT neighborhood, or the newly regenerated parts of San Francisco and Oakland, or around Austin, and you'll find office after office of biotech start-ups.
"We have already secured an amount of doses that we need to vaccinate 380 million Europeans, and this is more than 80% of the European population [of 450 million people]," Mrs von der Leyen said.
She said other vaccine authorisations were expected in the coming weeks and months, so "Europe will have more than enough vaccine within a reliable timeframe".
She said the commission had taken the right course of action on vaccines.
"I'm convinced that when we look back at this one day we'll see, well yes, at the beginning, there was a bumpy road [but] well, that's always the case."
It's just ridiculous. They got it wrong, they should just admit it.
In her 380 million doses is she counting vaccines like Sanofi that haven't completed PIII trials and may not even end up getting approval?
No I think they now have deals in place with Pfizer and Moderna for that many. But they are back of the queue....well not front of it. So a lot of it is coming Q2, Q3, Q4 and beyond.
You get what you pay for - when and at the price you paid.
An extra billion paid to get it weeks ahead of others will more than pay for itself multiple times over.
FPT - nuclear weapons exist to level the playing field against those with massive conventional forces, that we couldn't hope to match, and to deter nuclear blackmail against us by nuclear armed powers.
I know others have equally strong views on this, but count me out from the unilateralists please. It's an ultimate insurance policy that I'm happy to have - and pay for - and helps me sleep soundly at night.
You could sleep soundly at night if you'd paid to be surrounded by a battalion of Grenadier Guards to keep burglars out. But if it meant your children went hungry....?
There is a huge amount of "whataboutery" supporting the UK having nuclear weapons. Would someone like to give me an actual, real life, certifiable example of when they have given me cause to sleep more soundly at night?
Where my slumbers are qualitatively better is the knowledge that some ISIS commander or some Al Qaeda financier is being lit up for delivery of a smart bomb by a special forces guy in the shadows, who has the use of the latest array of technology to call upon.
I'd be very happy for the UK to be known as providing those people the bad guys should lose sleep over. Be the go-to place for the brightest and best fighting men in the world. Hell, I'd pay top dollar to recruit some of the Foreign Legion special forces guys into the team. They were some of the best close protection I've used (and that includes having used a guy from the Bravo 2 Zero patrol).
The ability to insert these into any country - and then safely extract them - would be an ultimate expression of power. And a much more effective use of defence money than the umpteen billions spent having no more than one Trident submarine on patrol at any one time.
Well, our children aren't going hungry. The cost of a few billion a year is easily absorbable within our massive government budget of many hundreds of billions. So I don't think that's a real choice. And I think the safety payback we get for it (in terms of a safe and secure space for economic growth and trade) is worth it.
I can't speak for how you sleep at night but I certainly think they are deterring Russia from taking more serious action over the Baltic States (NATO members) and also China over Taiwan. They were also useful in the first Gulf War in convincing Saddam Hussein not to use chemical or biological weapons. Of course it's difficult to prove a counterfactual where they made *the* difference - the decisive difference - because they are a strategic deterrent, not a tactical one, and such confrontations are rare precisely because they do exist. When that fails they are part of a diplomatic and military deterrent toolkit of why things don't escalate as far as they could.
I agree with you on special forces and on smart weapons. They are essential too. But I wouldn't eliminate our strategic deterrent. I think that'd be dangerous.
I'm more in the @Casino_Royale camp here. I would not wanting to be relying on the "goodwill" of China and Russia not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear UK in the case of a dispute.
But here we enter the realms of whether we would be allowed to use Trident in that event, or whether we'd find that the system had been (wisely imho) disabled by a higher power.
If you were America, and Britain got itself into a nuclear conflict with a third party, and you had the ability to shut the system down, would you do it? Or would you just let them go ahead with it in case they asked for a refund? It isn't an independent deterrent. Everyone (including Russia and China) is aware of that fact.
I’ve read convincing arguments that the USA has ensured the UK nukes are genuinely independent in terms of use, because that gives America more leverage globally - if America’s closest ally is highly armed with nukes, then any foe of America has to factor that in to their military strategy, making any planned attack on the West/USA much more complex and unpredictable
Independent in terms of use is one factor. Over the medium term there is no independence as I understand it - if the US decided it no longer wanted the UK to have Trident I think it could take it away from us pretty easily as we rely on them to service the system. In my view it is inaccurate to say we have an independent nuclear deterrent.
Am I right in thinking we don't have any for enough months that there shouldn't in fact be any great demand for it?
Do you want the Oxford (Russell Group) vaccine or the Moderna (Poly) one?
Let the snobbery commence.
There are reports of oldies asking for “the English” vaccine....
Yes, I saw that. I see that as slightly misguided patriotism rather than nationalism.
My mother (who is almost 80) hails from Oxford, as do her side of the family, and she is very very proud of the Oxford vaccine. Of course, she wants that one.
I've told her that the vaccine is so lethal and risky she should take the first one she gets but, if she has a choice, sure, why shouldn't she pick the Oxford one?
There's nothing wrong with pride in a home-grown success.
If the question you're asking is "which country does this therapy come from?", you're asking the wrong question. If it's the only question asked, it's elevated to good old fashioned stupidity.
Indeed, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having pride in a home-grown success (with a lot of international scientists and networking involved too, of course) as well. People want to feel part of it. Those who sneer at that tend to have a problem with patriotism more broadly.
Personally, I will take the first jab I can get. But, I'm also proud of our pharmaceutical industry so would probably feel some pride if I got the Oxford one too.
The Oxford vaccine is the product of the UK's world class university-based R&D sector. We should be very proud of it. Outside of the US, it is the best there is. We also need to make sure it is looked after and further nurtured. It is absolutely not something we should take for granted. The traditional UK brain drain came to an end as the result of deliberate policy. For me, if we are serious about levelling-up, universities would be ideal to build around as they are in all parts of the country. Give investment in university R&D substantial tax breaks, enable patent creation and tech transfer, create spin-outs, build hubs.
Actually, COVID has exposed we need to do a lot more and dropping behind. Oxford have made a vaccine based on old established tech, fine. Pfizer and Moderna have produced one based on cutting edge tech that has many advantages. Imperial are miles behind with the similar tech.
The problem is that Imperial is a university, the tech should have been spun out into a new company with government backing and protection from being bought by a foreign company/state or any kind of overseas IP transfer for a period of 5 years at least. We need to be so much better at monetising our research.
Don't disagree on how poor universities / academics are at monetising ideas. Mrs U has had loads of battles with academics in her field when suggested there is money to be made in an idea. It is too often treated like some sort of dirty thing to be seen doing, then they complain about not having enough research funding.
On topic: I gaze into the future of the Republican party - not too far, just a couple of years - and I see no Trump or Trumpdom there. What I do see, however and alas, are elements of the MAGA agenda still in the mix.
The million $ puzzle which imo must be solved in order to predict where the party goes is as follows - Of the 73m who voted for Donald Trump what are the approx weightings (adjusted for overlap) for the 4 main categories?
1. Love Trump. Lucky to have him. Helluva guy and a total one off. Just so into everything about the man. 2. Always vote Republican. It's what I am - a Republican. Cut me and I bleed tax cuts & voter suppression. 3. Not big on politics. Only care about the economy. Thought he'd done ok on that. Why change. 4. Trump? Can take him or leave him but I like his hard right national populist rhetoric and policies.
No particular order there except that I've put the last one last for a reason. I think it's the smallest.
Very rough guesses:
1. 10 2. 50 3. 8 4. 5
Although 1 and 4 are largely the same category, if we're being honest.
Much obliged. This is what I'm looking for. Unadorned numbers that I can crunch thro the "Predict the Near Term Future of the GOP" model I've developed (mainly for betting purposes but also to aid my superforecasting and related punditry).
On topic: I gaze into the future of the Republican party - not too far, just a couple of years - and I see no Trump or Trumpdom there. What I do see, however and alas, are elements of the MAGA agenda still in the mix.
The million $ puzzle which imo must be solved in order to predict where the party goes is as follows - Of the 73m who voted for Donald Trump what are the approx weightings (adjusted for overlap) for the 4 main categories?
1. Love Trump. Lucky to have him. Helluva guy and a total one off. Just so into everything about the man. 2. Always vote Republican. It's what I am - a Republican. Cut me and I bleed tax cuts & voter suppression. 3. Not big on politics. Only care about the economy. Thought he'd done ok on that. Why change. 4. Trump? Can take him or leave him but I like his hard right national populist rhetoric and policies.
No particular order there except that I've put the last one last for a reason. I think it's the smallest.
Very rough guesses:
1. 10 2. 50 3. 8 4. 5
Although 1 and 4 are largely the same category, if we're being honest.
Much obliged. This is what I'm looking for. Unadorned numbers that I can crunch thro the "Predict the Near Term Future of the GOP" model I've developed (mainly for betting purposes but also to aid my superforecasting and related punditry).
- No bright future for MAGA without Trump. - Republican party v Trump is a mismatch. Party prevails.
Much easier to split the 73, so: 1. 20 2. 45 3. 6 4. 2
That's an interesting one, thanks.
Think we might be saying that the MAGA element - voters who love a bit of hardcore nativist nationalism but are indifferent to the Trump delivery mechanism - is negligible.
So let's drop it and merge me, you, pulpstar, BluestBlue et alia to get -
1. I'm a Republican stupid - 65 2. I'm a Trumpster and I AM stupid - 25 3. It's the economy obvs - 10
Mr. Eagles, I do rather miss earlier days of the internet when there were more forums on specific subjects and no social media giants. I know the former still exist, but still.
Worth adding that mainstream broadcast media has declined continuously, gradually, over the years (excepting at ITV where it fell off a cliff when they made Bradby anchor and Peston political editor).
I know, I miss the old message boards and (AOL) chatrooms of the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Twenty years ago she would probably have ended up bankrupt. Today she will crowdfund it and make millions of dollars profit from losing her court case.
Comments
Whatever happened to the America of John Wayne and Henry Fonda?
Seriously though, I haven’t seen any evidence that the objectors were “active participants”. Giuliani left a voicemail; Tuberville did not get it.
(Unlike, say, Boris, who *did* receive Darius Guppy’s phone call, and promised to send him Stuart Collier’s contact details so they Guppy could have the man assaulted.)
And unless I'm missing something it shows he is driven by his "urges" rather than longer view (i.e. beyond NOW) calculation. So we can bury the "evil genius" myth while we're at it, except as it relates to finding and feeding LCDs with his comms. Re prison, my strong hunch - and therefore prediction - is it will not happen. I hope to have got that wildly, hopelessly wrong.
There are hints it might be as good as, or nearly as good as, the mRNAs, in which case Oxford’s cheapness and ease of storage will make it a winner everywhere.
1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945.
Cuban Missile Crisis is a good one, and there were probably a few other Soviet near misses in the years up to 1989 as well.
Also, Scotland does those fried potato scallops which we also do in NZ but are depressingly absent in London.
Vaccine collaboration could overcome cold chain issues for RNA-based vaccines - 07 January 2021
Imperial vaccine researchers are collaborating with industry partners to develop RNA vaccines stable at temperatures up to 40C.
The project, which will see Imperial researchers partner with UK biotech company Enesi, has the potential to overcome current cold-chain issues associated with RNA vaccines, eliminating the need to keep doses frozen at temperatures well below 0C.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/211413/vaccine-collaboration-could-overcome-cold-chain/
Bit late, but hey....
Bradford Council announced the 'iWalkers' scheme this week but due to public backlash it has been forced to delete a Facebook post detailing its plans.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9126229/Council-recruits-men-TVs-strapped-heads-warn-public-not-break-Covid-lockdown.html
1. Always Republican.
2. Love Trump.
3. The Economy.
4. Love MAGA.
Any views on relative weightings?
i.e. Giving each a number and forcing the sum to be 100.
If it's the only question asked, it's elevated to good old fashioned stupidity.
I’d hate for your business to be undermined by less authentic dildos.
It will be very useful , if/when it works, for the future.
We know it's going to be grim, and lots of people will die. Healthcare workers in particular will have an awful time of it. But what's the potential for surprise on the downside that even remotely compares with 1940?
Another (worse) mutation, I suppose. But it hardly seems that likely that one would emerge that would increase mortality to the point that it materially changes the game.
I can't speak for how you sleep at night but I certainly think they are deterring Russia from taking more serious action over the Baltic States (NATO members) and also China over Taiwan. They were also useful in the first Gulf War in convincing Saddam Hussein not to use chemical or biological weapons. Of course it's difficult to prove a counterfactual where they made *the* difference - the decisive difference - because they are a strategic deterrent, not a tactical one, and such confrontations are rare precisely because they do exist. When that fails they are part of a diplomatic and military deterrent toolkit of why things don't escalate as far as they could.
I agree with you on special forces and on smart weapons. They are essential too. But I wouldn't eliminate our strategic deterrent. I think that'd be dangerous.
Personally, I will take the first jab I can get. But, I'm also proud of our pharmaceutical industry so would probably feel some pride if I got the Oxford one too.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1347517695164612608
Surely the time when China could be though of a reliable partner is past. Unless you are the EU of course.
I also think this is an odd week for people to be arguing that we don't need nuclear weapons because the US have them and we're unlikely to take any action that doesn't involve them.
It needs "100" weightings so yours are -
1. Republican 68
2. Trump 14
3. Economy 11
4. MAGA 7
Pretty good first pass imo.
1st tentative conclusions:
- No bright future for MAGA without Trump.
- Republican party v Trump is a mismatch. Party prevails.
If we’re in the world of Scottish fried food, I think you just have to embrace the perviness.
Just what GB News has planned for us here, if the lobbyists get their way and broadcasting regulations are changed.
Hurrah! There seems to be a trend (perhaps it's just a PB thing) of doom pornography, whereby every time a new 'strain' of this virus arrives it's immediately deemed to be vaccine proof.
Anyone remember the Mutant Mink? Then there was the Crafty Kentish, then the Super Saffer.
Probably.
For some reason.
This is a morbid game to play but if you so desire there are several ways the next month could be calamitous
One is, yes, a mutation. We are racking up 50,000 cases a day, every case gives the virus another chance to get nastier. Imagine greater transmissibility with greater lethality... CFR of 10%... 30%...
More worrying, because more likely, is a crashed health system. It basically happened in Wuhan where CFR went up to 5-7% (no one is entirely sure) and the city came close to total collapse. This was avoided by China sealing off the city, and pouring in enormous resources - at one point Wuhan had, IIRC, 3 new medical workers for every two COVID patients
If that happens in London and the SE could we match the Chinese effort?
1. 20
2. 45
3. 6
4. 2
https://twitter.com/bellingcat/status/1347426236218400769
"We have already secured an amount of doses that we need to vaccinate 380 million Europeans, and this is more than 80% of the European population [of 450 million people]," Mrs von der Leyen said.
She said other vaccine authorisations were expected in the coming weeks and months, so "Europe will have more than enough vaccine within a reliable timeframe".
She said the commission had taken the right course of action on vaccines.
"I'm convinced that when we look back at this one day we'll see, well yes, at the beginning, there was a bumpy road [but] well, that's always the case."
If you were America, and Britain got itself into a nuclear conflict with a third party, and you had the ability to shut the system down, would you do it? Or would you just let them go ahead with it in case they asked for a refund? It isn't an independent deterrent. Everyone (including Russia and China) is aware of that fact.
Also where's that link for snitches to contact Police Scotland?
How can someone go from backing Blair/Obama to thinking all left wing politicians are paedos funded by George Soros and wanting to wipe out all white Christian people?
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
I would say:
Republican 63 million
MAGA/Trump 9 million
Economy 1 million
Worth adding that mainstream broadcast media has declined continuously, gradually, over the years (excepting at ITV where it fell off a cliff when they made Bradby anchor and Peston political editor).
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opinion/alex-bell/1865965/alex-bell-scottish-independence-must-happen-in-five-years-or-the-moment-will-close/
US policy on nuclear weapons and allies is interesting. Essentially, it is better to have them inside the tent pissing out, rather than the reverse. Hence the current comedy about Typhoon and it's ability (or not) to carry US nuclear weapons. Which is actually required.....
Never defends it once he does share it and gets called out.
Where the US is dominant is creating biotech start-ups from the graduates of its top universities. Wander around the MIT neighborhood, or the newly regenerated parts of San Francisco and Oakland, or around Austin, and you'll find office after office of biotech start-ups.
An extra billion paid to get it weeks ahead of others will more than pay for itself multiple times over.
Think we might be saying that the MAGA element - voters who love a bit of hardcore nativist nationalism but are indifferent to the Trump delivery mechanism - is negligible.
So let's drop it and merge me, you, pulpstar, BluestBlue et alia to get -
1. I'm a Republican stupid - 65
2. I'm a Trumpster and I AM stupid - 25
3. It's the economy obvs - 10
Nice clear pointers emerging now.
But what are they?
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1347515166322290689
What a strange world it has become.