Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Almost like we never learn.
We need to have a discussion (which we won't have) about the UK's place in the world, militarily. We seem to think it now has something to do with keeping China contained in the Indo-Pacific region.
Fine.
But if this has been thought through, via position papers, strategic defence reviews, and workshopped by all stakeholders I'll stop posting on PB for 20 mins from 3am-5am on a Sunday morning.
It's just Boris (and potentially the General Staff) grandstanding without any regard for what it means in practice should things turn hot.
Edit: and it doesn't even seem to be that. Just us pushing from the back.
A lot of thought has been put into the future of defence and the issues with China.
LOL I'll get some peace.
That said, my point stands (of course it does, this is PB). Between the politicians and the general staff (who produced the document) the UK seems determined to write cheques that we don't want or are unable to cash (cf Iraq, Afghan, etc these past 20 years).
I don't think its accurate at all to compare Iraq/Afghanistan and China.
Its worth thinking about why the USA lost the Vietnam war in 1975 but the Free World won the Cold War and the Berlin Wall fell the following decade.
Asymmetric warfare with medieval savages who don't care if they live or die is a different kettle of fish to a conflict with another major power that does care if they live or die.
I've been saying this for years, based on the view that British people should face British justice not simply have all their rights as British citizens waived at the whim of politicians on the make and "intelligence" from the people who thought that Saddam had WMD. You know, due process, the rule of law, things this country used to be famous for. Her looks shouldn't come into it.
I'm in favour of letting her into the country. Provided she goes on trial, immediately, for the war crimes she committed.
War crimes she is alleged to have committed - Innocent until proven guilty, another important principle of British justice. But yes, get her back, put her on trial. We have a legal system, let's use it. The situation she is in now makes a mockery of the rule of law and is an affront to all notions of natural justice.
She admitted to participating in war crimes in several interviews.
The probative value of those interviews is overstated. If she is put on trial here and pleads not guilty, the Crown would have to prove its case to the usual standard. And that will not be easy, with many witnesses dead or in Syria/Iraq.
OpenSea, one of the largest NFT marketplaces, has confirmed that its head of product, Nate Chastain, used insider knowledge to purchase NFTs that he knew were going to be displayed on the front page of OpenSea ahead of general release.
The accusations first arose on Twitter, with one user called ‘Zuwu’ saying that Chastain seems to be selling these pieces “shortly after the front-page-hype spike for profits.”
Yesterday, on September 15, OpenSea published a post confirming Chastain’s actions.
The most ridiculous thing about it, he only made 20 ETH. Which at $3-4k per ETh sounds like a lot of money, until you see how much money OpenSea is making per day. They are making millions and millions, as they take 2.5% of every sale.
The whole NFT market is just one giant MLM scheme, people hype up a project to get other people interested, flip their crap to them, who then try and flip it to somebody...and the top of the chain, then move onto the next bag of shit to flip.
One user has made $15 million out of this so far this year.
I shouldn't complain though, selling shovels to all these idiots has made me a decent chunk of change past few weeks.
The whole thing sounds utterly bonkers.
As I have said before, there is something in NFTs and I can see this idea being built upon e.g. all your tickets for a gig / sporting event could be an NFT, then you know you got a real one (especially if you buy it second hand) and when you try to go in the venue know you have got a real one.
Same with high end digital art. I can see there being a shutterstock type site, you get to use whatever you see for your ad / website and the artist automatically gets a royalty. And you can also easily check if somebody is using your art without paying.
HOWEVER....at the moment, 100s of these stupid profile cartoon avatars are trading for $1000s, $10ks, $100k, even $1 millions, and the value swings massively every day.....absolute insanity and some people are going to be left holding the bag and lose a lot of money.
But obviously it has driven up the price of the crypto's that are the main coins for them. One, SOL, went from ~$20 to over $200 in a few weeks.
My lad "minted" an NFT (whatever that means) for about $300 a few days ago and has just sold it for about 2.5 ETH which he tells me is about $8,300! I've long since lost track of his crypto dealings and will be glad when he turns 18 and no longer needs to use my identity to harvest his dodgy gains!
Minting is when a project releases a new item, it needs to be put onto the blockchain. To do you so you normally pay a fee to the artist for the right to buy into the contract i.e. a bit of digital art and then you have to pay a fee (called gas) to the network to process the transaction.
Due to everybody going made over these NFTs have gone crazy and often its many $100s just for the "gas". Your kid did well to only pay $300, I know people who have paid $1000 just for the gas ...and due to the way the system works, there is no guarantee that will get you the item.
Basically if more people go for a contract then there are spaces, once its filled, all further transactions are rejected, BUT you don't get your gas fee back, as work had to be done to find this out.
So over the past few weeks, for hyped projects, people are firing $1000s and $1000s to try and secure just one item from a collection and quite often a load of their transactions get rejected.
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Fine but the US, UK and Australia are not strong enough to contain China alone in Asia, they need Japan, S Korea and India on board as well.
Plus we also need France to help us contain Russia and deal with jihadis in Africa and share intelligence on extremists
That's why they have the QUAD - USA, India, Australia, Japan
America has realised we are now in a Cold War. And we are. China is actively hostile, seeks to diminish the West, divide us all up, and will quite happily send a lethal virus around the world, while sealing it up at home
And so America is saying to its allies: this is it, choose a side, we want to avoid a war, but that means we need deterrence. AUKUS will be the military backbone for deterring China, as NATO was for containing the USSR. I am sure other countries will join in the effort, in different ways
It's a damn shame. A liberal co-operative China would have been a wonderful thing for the world. For homo sapiens. But it's not on offer, not any more, and the new reality is much darker. But it is the reality
I'm not sure the Cold War is the best analogy. This isn't ideological in the same way; it's more like an old-fashioned rivalry for power.
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Fine but the US, UK and Australia are not strong enough to contain China alone in Asia, they need Japan, S Korea and India on board as well.
Plus we also need France to help us contain Russia and deal with jihadis in Africa and share intelligence on extremists
That's why they have the QUAD - USA, India, Australia, Japan
America has realised we are now in a Cold War. And we are. China is actively hostile, seeks to diminish the West, divide us all up, and will quite happily send a lethal virus around the world, while sealing it up at home
And so America is saying to its allies: this is it, choose a side, we want to avoid a war, but that means we need deterrence. AUKUS will be the military backbone for deterring China, as NATO was for containing the USSR. I am sure other countries will join in the effort, in different ways
It's a damn shame. A liberal co-operative China would have been a wonderful thing for the world. For homo sapiens. But it's not on offer, not any more, and the new reality is much darker. But it is the reality
Xi has definitely got more authoritarian as time as gone on. I suppose emboldened that the world isn't going to do anything.
The comparisons with Hitler are depressing, but entirely valid
Every time he has done something outrageous, he's waited for the world to respond, and the world has shrugged. The Uighurs, the state surveillance, the new "islands" in the South China Sea, the annexation of Hong Kong, The last is uncannily like Hitler in Austria or the Sudetenland. An outright land grab. And no one did anything
Finally the West is getting its act together. AUKUS is just the start. It is encouraging in that it shows America is NOT choosing isolationism. It is also a good thing in that it puts an electric pessary up the butts of freeloading or vacillating western allies like Canada, Spain, Italy, Germany. No more shirking.
I've been saying this for years, based on the view that British people should face British justice not simply have all their rights as British citizens waived at the whim of politicians on the make and "intelligence" from the people who thought that Saddam had WMD. You know, due process, the rule of law, things this country used to be famous for. Her looks shouldn't come into it.
I'm in favour of letting her into the country. Provided she goes on trial, immediately, for the war crimes she committed.
War crimes she is alleged to have committed - Innocent until proven guilty, another important principle of British justice. But yes, get her back, put her on trial. We have a legal system, let's use it. The situation she is in now makes a mockery of the rule of law and is an affront to all notions of natural justice.
She admitted to participating in war crimes in several interviews.
The probative value of those interviews is overstated. If she is put on trial here and pleads not guilty, the Crown would have to prove its case to the usual standard. And that will not be easy, with many witnesses dead or in Syria/Iraq.
I wouldn't think that the interviews themselves are admissible. It's just that if someone publicly admits to crime, I tend to think they are a bit guilty.
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
My guess (one of my guesses...) is that one reason for this deal is that so it *isn't* twenty years. Oz and others have realised that China's proving a regional strategic threat much faster they had feared. I bet Oz get something much faster, even if it's 'loaned' boats for 'training' purposes.
An American SSN will never be operated by a foreign navy. There are few certainties in the defence game but that is one of them. I could see a bargain offer from the UK for the two remaining Astute boats that are being built (Arbroath and Anal Fissure) for delivery in 2026/7 and commissioning by 2030. That would be classic MoD.
Selling them to Australia is politically more palatable for the tories than just binning them, the MoD gets a massive cost saving and the RN don't have the headache of trying to crew them. The constellations could align for that.
Rather like the old Imperial defence wheeze - the Anzacs ended up buying (or occasionally themselves building) dreadnoughts/battlecruisers/cruisers with appropriate names eg HMAS Sydney (two off). And crewing them too. Though this time round I don't suppose they will automatically be taking orders from the Home Country.
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Fine but the US, UK and Australia are not strong enough to contain China alone in Asia, they need Japan, S Korea and India on board as well.
Plus we also need France to help us contain Russia and deal with jihadis in Africa and share intelligence on extremists
Expert on all things master of none
Next week the agreement will be signed in the US and India and Japan are to attend, and South Korea are fully behind this
@Philip_Thompson said earlier that you have never lost your remain opinions and I was unsure until I have read a few of your posts and you do seem to have an element of it to be honest
When things calm down I have no doubt France and other allies, not least Canada, will be called on but they will not be in the tripartite inner circle
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
It's France's fault. Theory goes that Australia faced with growing Chinese fleet decided to upgrade subs from diesel to nuclear and the French (who were converting their nuclear sub to diesel for the Australians) said "Non". What did they expect? Australia needed nuclear subs - France refused to supply them.
All a bit odd - the Aussies could have gone for nuke subs back in the 1950s when they were in the forefront of military tech and cooperation (Woomera, Ikara etc.) Geography hasn't changed since then.
The threat has
Has it? Edit: yes, in detail, but not the needs imposed by geography. Think about history since 1945. I mean, there were threats then in that area - my dad served in the RN as part of the response in the 1950s. So the Australian subs needed long range even then.
The population of Australia was under 10m in the mid 50s. And the economy correspondingly less well developed. Nuclear powered subs were way beyond their purse.
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Fine but the US, UK and Australia are not strong enough to contain China alone in Asia, they need Japan, S Korea and India on board as well.
Plus we also need France to help us contain Russia and deal with jihadis in Africa and share intelligence on extremists
That's why they have the QUAD - USA, India, Australia, Japan
America has realised we are now in a Cold War. And we are. China is actively hostile, seeks to diminish the West, divide us all up, and will quite happily send a lethal virus around the world, while sealing it up at home
And so America is saying to its allies: this is it, choose a side, we want to avoid a war, but that means we need deterrence. AUKUS will be the military backbone for deterring China, as NATO was for containing the USSR. I am sure other countries will join in the effort, in different ways
It's a damn shame. A liberal co-operative China would have been a wonderful thing for the world. For homo sapiens. But it's not on offer, not any more, and the new reality is much darker. But it is the reality
I'm not sure the Cold War is the best analogy. This isn't ideological in the same way; it's more like an old-fashioned rivalry for power.
I think the Cold War is the best analogy. Because its not going to lead to open direct conflict, but shadow conflicts and powerplays instead.
Plus there is an ideological issue here. Free World vs Communist Dictatorship, just like the Cold War. The Communist Dictatorship is less communist than the USSR but every bit as Communist.
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Almost like we never learn.
We need to have a discussion (which we won't have) about the UK's place in the world, militarily. We seem to think it now has something to do with keeping China contained in the Indo-Pacific region.
Fine.
But if this has been thought through, via position papers, strategic defence reviews, and workshopped by all stakeholders I'll stop posting on PB for 20 mins from 3am-5am on a Sunday morning.
It's just Boris (and potentially the General Staff) grandstanding without any regard for what it means in practice should things turn hot.
Edit: and it doesn't even seem to be that. Just us pushing from the back.
A lot of thought has been put into the future of defence and the issues with China.
LOL I'll get some peace.
That said, my point stands (of course it does, this is PB). Between the politicians and the general staff (who produced the document) the UK seems determined to write cheques that we don't want or are unable to cash (cf Iraq, Afghan, etc these past 20 years).
I don't think its accurate at all to compare Iraq/Afghanistan and China.
Its worth thinking about why the USA lost the Vietnam war in 1975 but the Free World won the Cold War and the Berlin Wall fell the following decade.
Asymmetric warfare with medieval savages who don't care if they live or die is a different kettle of fish to a conflict with another major power that does care if they live or die.
The USSR ran out of money, didn't it? We starved them out.
I am not entirely sure that will be the case for the PRC which is still on an upwards trajectory development-wise.
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Fine but the US, UK and Australia are not strong enough to contain China alone in Asia, they need Japan, S Korea and India on board as well.
Plus we also need France to help us contain Russia and deal with jihadis in Africa and share intelligence on extremists
That's why they have the QUAD - USA, India, Australia, Japan
America has realised we are now in a Cold War. And we are. China is actively hostile, seeks to diminish the West, divide us all up, and will quite happily send a lethal virus around the world, while sealing it up at home
And so America is saying to its allies: this is it, choose a side, we want to avoid a war, but that means we need deterrence. AUKUS will be the military backbone for deterring China, as NATO was for containing the USSR. I am sure other countries will join in the effort, in different ways
It's a damn shame. A liberal co-operative China would have been a wonderful thing for the world. For homo sapiens. But it's not on offer, not any more, and the new reality is much darker. But it is the reality
I'm not sure the Cold War is the best analogy. This isn't ideological in the same way; it's more like an old-fashioned rivalry for power.
I can't think of any other way to describe it. Because it is more than just rivalry, China is overtly and covertly trying to hurt us. The virus is just one example. Even if it didn't come from the lab (SPOILER: IT CAME FROM THE LAB) they damn well made sure it went around the world, seeding every country
That's as close as you can get to war without shooting? So I'll go with Cold War until someone has a better description
SPD and Grune and Linke still only gets to 48% though, SPD and Grune and FDP does get to 50%
I think this is an outlier for die Linke but I would be surprised if they poll less than 6% and get less than 3 constituency seats in East Berlin. I would be surprised if they got any constituency elsewhere though (like Leipzig/Dresden etc)
Assuming that FW and Sonstige(others) are not in the final shareout as they are below 5%, then 48 out of 90 will definitely be above 50%, therefore a majority.
I agree about the Linke 8% being an outlier (the other poll on the same day showed them still at 6). But as Gary and Davey say, the sPD is likely to have a choice - Greens plus FDP or Linke. I think Scholz would prefer the FDP, though that might lose some voters on the left. Probably we won't know at once as Scholz will trade off one against the other in negotiations.
On a lighter note, this is what the Greens in Germany want for a sleeper train network. It gets my vote!
Mine too. Some impossibly romantic journeys there. London to Venice. London to Barcelona. London to Naples. Wake up looking at Capri!
Edinburgh to Athens would be the ultimate but they've gotta get up and cross stations in London. Sorry about that
Yes, that's one reason why we need to build a direct link to HS2, so trains from Scotland/northern England can go direct to the continent. That said, I believe Paris suffers from the same issue (I could be wrong, I dare say the PB Train Experts will clarify).
From booking trains from Edinburgh to Avignon for my late dad, he had to change stations in both London and Paris. Might be different now, but I suspect the two countries both suffer from their capital=galactic centre symdrome and can't imagine that anyone might not automatically want to pay homage.
Certainly an issue in nations with Primate Cities. I mean, Londoners and Parisians do have a point. They are both fantastic cities. But we really do need to consider rail bypasses for both.
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
It's France's fault. Theory goes that Australia faced with growing Chinese fleet decided to upgrade subs from diesel to nuclear and the French (who were converting their nuclear sub to diesel for the Australians) said "Non". What did they expect? Australia needed nuclear subs - France refused to supply them.
All a bit odd - the Aussies could have gone for nuke subs back in the 1950s when they were in the forefront of military tech and cooperation (Woomera, Ikara etc.) Geography hasn't changed since then.
The threat has
Has it? Edit: yes, in detail, but not the needs imposed by geography. Think about history since 1945. I mean, there were threats then in that area - my dad served in the RN as part of the response in the 1950s. So the Australian subs needed long range even then.
The population of Australia was under 10m in the mid 50s. And the economy correspondingly less well developed. Nuclear capable subs were way beyond their purse.
That does make sense, thanks. Even buying in the reactors ...
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Fine but the US, UK and Australia are not strong enough to contain China alone in Asia, they need Japan, S Korea and India on board as well.
Plus we also need France to help us contain Russia and deal with jihadis in Africa and share intelligence on extremists
That's why they have the QUAD - USA, India, Australia, Japan
America has realised we are now in a Cold War. And we are. China is actively hostile, seeks to diminish the West, divide us all up, and will quite happily send a lethal virus around the world, while sealing it up at home
And so America is saying to its allies: this is it, choose a side, we want to avoid a war, but that means we need deterrence. AUKUS will be the military backbone for deterring China, as NATO was for containing the USSR. I am sure other countries will join in the effort, in different ways
It's a damn shame. A liberal co-operative China would have been a wonderful thing for the world. For homo sapiens. But it's not on offer, not any more, and the new reality is much darker. But it is the reality
Xi has definitely got more authoritarian as time as gone on. I suppose emboldened that the world isn't going to do anything.
The comparisons with Hitler are depressing, but entirely valid
Every time he has done something outrageous, he's waited for the world to respond, and the world has shrugged. The Uighurs, the state surveillance, the new "islands" in the South China Sea, the annexation of Hong Kong, The last is uncannily like Hitler in Austria or the Sudetenland. An outright land grab. And no one did anything
Finally the West is getting its act together. AUKUS is just the start. It is encouraging in that it shows America is NOT choosing isolationism. It is also a good thing in that it puts an electric pessary up the butts of freeloading or vacillating western allies like Canada, Spain, Italy, Germany. No more shirking.
Until the west does something about rampant IP theft, market and currency manipulation, blind eye to Chinese companies taking over strategically important western ones to form massive monopolies, the Chinese are only going to get more and more powerful.
COVID should be a huge wake up call for how over reliant the west has become on China for far too many crucial sectors. Crap plastic toys is one thing, but for instance not having access to base chemicals, many crucially important to medicines and fundamental chemical processes, that is very dangerous.
Even at the more trivial end, the likes of Amazon and Ebay just absolutely don't care if sellers are flogging products from "ghost" Hong Kong / Chinese companies.
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
It's France's fault. Theory goes that Australia faced with growing Chinese fleet decided to upgrade subs from diesel to nuclear and the French (who were converting their nuclear sub to diesel for the Australians) said "Non". What did they expect? Australia needed nuclear subs - France refused to supply them.
All a bit odd - the Aussies could have gone for nuke subs back in the 1950s when they were in the forefront of military tech and cooperation (Woomera, Ikara etc.) Geography hasn't changed since then.
The threat has
Has it? Edit: yes, in detail, but not the needs imposed by geography. Think about history since 1945. I mean, there were threats then in that area - my dad served in the RN as part of the response in the 1950s. So the Australian subs needed long range even then.
The population of Australia was under 10m in the mid 50s. And the economy correspondingly less well developed. Nuclear powered subs were way beyond their purse.
There were still below 19 million when I left the country at the turn of the century.
They could quite feasibly end this century with as high a population as England ended the last one.
Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, said the mandatory vaccination policy was “very unfair” and that about 2,000 of the region’s care home workers faced losing their jobs overnight unless they received their first jab within hours.
King of the North is totally wrong side of the argument on this. It really isn't unfair at all. All adults have now had months to organize getting jabbed, and you have a duty of care to the people you look after.
The reality is that it's going to put a lot of pressure on the sector as those who don't want to be jabbed (probably the main reason now for unjabbed staff in this sector) leave. In other times, this might not have mattered, but with the current state of the jobs market, they will be difficult or expensive to replace. Choosing between "not enough staff" and "all staff jabbed" is not necessarily clear cut.
Yes it is. These staff are literally dealing with the most vulnerable to the virus. No excuses, get the jab or get out of the sector.
Anyone who wants to keep their job will go get the jab.
The problem is that quite a few of them probably don't particularly want to keep their job and are likely eyeing better paid and less stressful work elsewhere.
That's not a problem.
If that gets the unvaccinated away from the vulnerable then that's a win.
And if they can find a job happy to hire them that makes them happier then good luck to them too.
Good luck answering the "why did you leave your last employer" question at interview if it gets asked though.
More pertinently, the problem is that there is a desperate shortage of care staff at the moment, and nobody wants to do anything to make the situation even worse. I agree that care workers should certainly be vaccinated, but if the choice is between an unvaccinated carer and no carer, then things are less clear cut!
Not for me it's not. I'd rather a vaccinated agency worker be there while recruitment proceeds than an unvaccinated one passing on the virus.
Anyone who knows they're working with the very most vulnerable in society that can't be arsed or doesn't want to get vaccinated can't be a very good carer anyway.
You miss my point again. There is a dire shortage of carers. If you get rid of the unvaccinated ones, there will be even fewer carers, and people will suffer from lack of care. It may well be that the consequences of the resulting loss of care are worse than the consequences of allowing unvaccinated carers in. That's why it's not clear cut.
The Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy didn't want war with the Eastern Roman Empire, but it got one.
[One of Justinian's more dickish moves. He managed to destroy the kingdom but not really replace it, and reduced Italy to instability for a thousand years and more].
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Almost like we never learn.
We need to have a discussion (which we won't have) about the UK's place in the world, militarily. We seem to think it now has something to do with keeping China contained in the Indo-Pacific region.
Fine.
But if this has been thought through, via position papers, strategic defence reviews, and workshopped by all stakeholders I'll stop posting on PB for 20 mins from 3am-5am on a Sunday morning.
It's just Boris (and potentially the General Staff) grandstanding without any regard for what it means in practice should things turn hot.
Edit: and it doesn't even seem to be that. Just us pushing from the back.
A lot of thought has been put into the future of defence and the issues with China.
LOL I'll get some peace.
That said, my point stands (of course it does, this is PB). Between the politicians and the general staff (who produced the document) the UK seems determined to write cheques that we don't want or are unable to cash (cf Iraq, Afghan, etc these past 20 years).
I don't think its accurate at all to compare Iraq/Afghanistan and China.
Its worth thinking about why the USA lost the Vietnam war in 1975 but the Free World won the Cold War and the Berlin Wall fell the following decade.
Asymmetric warfare with medieval savages who don't care if they live or die is a different kettle of fish to a conflict with another major power that does care if they live or die.
The USSR ran out of money, didn't it? We starved them out.
I am not entirely sure that will be the case for the PRC which is still on an upwards trajectory development-wise.
It took forty years of Cold War to bring down the USSR.
It may take fifty years to do similar with China, but we should be seeking to contain them and potentially do that if we can in the meantime.
The Chinese recently built a fucking massive new consulate in Adelaide specifically for spying on whatever, if any, boats get built at ASC. So at least they are ready if nobody else is.
Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, said the mandatory vaccination policy was “very unfair” and that about 2,000 of the region’s care home workers faced losing their jobs overnight unless they received their first jab within hours.
King of the North is totally wrong side of the argument on this. It really isn't unfair at all. All adults have now had months to organize getting jabbed, and you have a duty of care to the people you look after.
The reality is that it's going to put a lot of pressure on the sector as those who don't want to be jabbed (probably the main reason now for unjabbed staff in this sector) leave. In other times, this might not have mattered, but with the current state of the jobs market, they will be difficult or expensive to replace. Choosing between "not enough staff" and "all staff jabbed" is not necessarily clear cut.
Yes it is. These staff are literally dealing with the most vulnerable to the virus. No excuses, get the jab or get out of the sector.
Anyone who wants to keep their job will go get the jab.
The problem is that quite a few of them probably don't particularly want to keep their job and are likely eyeing better paid and less stressful work elsewhere.
That's not a problem.
If that gets the unvaccinated away from the vulnerable then that's a win.
And if they can find a job happy to hire them that makes them happier then good luck to them too.
Good luck answering the "why did you leave your last employer" question at interview if it gets asked though.
More pertinently, the problem is that there is a desperate shortage of care staff at the moment, and nobody wants to do anything to make the situation even worse. I agree that care workers should certainly be vaccinated, but if the choice is between an unvaccinated carer and no carer, then things are less clear cut!
Not for me it's not. I'd rather a vaccinated agency worker be there while recruitment proceeds than an unvaccinated one passing on the virus.
Anyone who knows they're working with the very most vulnerable in society that can't be arsed or doesn't want to get vaccinated can't be a very good carer anyway.
You miss my point again. There is a dire shortage of carers. If you get rid of the unvaccinated ones, there will be even fewer carers, and people will suffer from lack of care. It may well be that the consequences of the resulting loss of care are worse than the consequences of allowing unvaccinated carers in. That's why it's not clear cut.
I get your point. I'm simply making a value call that it is clear cut for me. I'd rather a bigger staff shortage and none unvaccinated (and I expect most unvaccinated will get the vaccine to save their job anyway) rather than continuing with the unvaccinated being free to infect the very most vulnerable in society.
SPD and Grune and Linke still only gets to 48% though, SPD and Grune and FDP does get to 50%
You do realise that this poll (like most recent polls) would give SPD+Greens+Left a majority, don't you? Oh never mind.
The SPD, Greens and Linke would also have had a majority in 2005 and 2013 too but the SPD did not do it as they would not touch the Stalinist Linke.
In 2017 the CDU/CSU, AfD and FDP would have had a majority but the CDU did not do it as it would have meant dealing with the populist right AfD.
If the SPD win most seats and do a deal with the Linke as well as the Greens rather than the FDP or the Union as per the previous Grand Coalitions then it would change German politics for good and shift it from the centre to the extremes.
Inevitably the Union as it moves right in opposition would then also start to have to consider future deals with the AfD in response. The FDP having been snubbed by the SPD would also move firmly into the right of centre camp
I broadly share your analysis, though I think one should recognise that the Linke leadership have shifted from being a party mainly of GDR nostalgics (which I think is what you're referring to as Stalinist) to a more conventional left-wing party much like the SV in Norway which is poised to join the government. Ironically they would probably be less comfortable coalition partners, since the old guard were used to the compromises needed in governing, while the new left now in charge are more Corbynist insurgent types.
Also, the FDP might choose to occupy the centre ground which the leftward move would have partly ceded, rather than move right to become a sub-CDU.
When you’re a minister and a video emerges of you falling over because you were racing a knee walker up a corridor in front of TV cameras, the correct response is to admit you were an eejit and laugh it off. Not get huffy about the video and make yourself look po-faced to boot.
Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, said the mandatory vaccination policy was “very unfair” and that about 2,000 of the region’s care home workers faced losing their jobs overnight unless they received their first jab within hours.
King of the North is totally wrong side of the argument on this. It really isn't unfair at all. All adults have now had months to organize getting jabbed, and you have a duty of care to the people you look after.
The reality is that it's going to put a lot of pressure on the sector as those who don't want to be jabbed (probably the main reason now for unjabbed staff in this sector) leave. In other times, this might not have mattered, but with the current state of the jobs market, they will be difficult or expensive to replace. Choosing between "not enough staff" and "all staff jabbed" is not necessarily clear cut.
Yes it is. These staff are literally dealing with the most vulnerable to the virus. No excuses, get the jab or get out of the sector.
Anyone who wants to keep their job will go get the jab.
The problem is that quite a few of them probably don't particularly want to keep their job and are likely eyeing better paid and less stressful work elsewhere.
That's not a problem.
If that gets the unvaccinated away from the vulnerable then that's a win.
And if they can find a job happy to hire them that makes them happier then good luck to them too.
Good luck answering the "why did you leave your last employer" question at interview if it gets asked though.
More pertinently, the problem is that there is a desperate shortage of care staff at the moment, and nobody wants to do anything to make the situation even worse. I agree that care workers should certainly be vaccinated, but if the choice is between an unvaccinated carer and no carer, then things are less clear cut!
Not for me it's not. I'd rather a vaccinated agency worker be there while recruitment proceeds than an unvaccinated one passing on the virus.
Anyone who knows they're working with the very most vulnerable in society that can't be arsed or doesn't want to get vaccinated can't be a very good carer anyway.
You miss my point again. There is a dire shortage of carers. If you get rid of the unvaccinated ones, there will be even fewer carers, and people will suffer from lack of care. It may well be that the consequences of the resulting loss of care are worse than the consequences of allowing unvaccinated carers in. That's why it's not clear cut.
I get your point. I'm simply making a value call that it is clear cut for me. I'd rather a bigger staff shortage and none unvaccinated (and I expect most unvaccinated will get the vaccine to save their job anyway) rather than continuing with the unvaccinated being free to infect the very most vulnerable in society.
Even if the outcome is more dead people?
Edit: Also, your bit in brackets is currently questionable. Working in care is a pretty tough job, and there are lots of less stressful jobs around at the moment.
SPD and Grune and Linke still only gets to 48% though, SPD and Grune and FDP does get to 50%
I think this is an outlier for die Linke but I would be surprised if they poll less than 6% and get less than 3 constituency seats in East Berlin. I would be surprised if they got any constituency elsewhere though (like Leipzig/Dresden etc)
Assuming that FW and Sonstige(others) are not in the final shareout as they are below 5%, then 48 out of 90 will definitely be above 50%, therefore a majority.
I agree about the Linke 8% being an outlier (the other poll on the same day showed them still at 6). But as Gary and Davey say, the sPD is likely to have a choice - Greens plus FDP or Linke. I think Scholz would prefer the FDP, though that might lose some voters on the left. Probably we won't know at once as Scholz will trade off one against the other in negotiations.
On a lighter note, this is what the Greens in Germany want for a sleeper train network. It gets my vote!
Mine too. Some impossibly romantic journeys there. London to Venice. London to Barcelona. London to Naples. Wake up looking at Capri!
Edinburgh to Athens would be the ultimate but they've gotta get up and cross stations in London. Sorry about that
Yes, that's one reason why we need to build a direct link to HS2, so trains from Scotland/northern England can go direct to the continent. That said, I believe Paris suffers from the same issue (I could be wrong, I dare say the PB Train Experts will clarify).
From booking trains from Edinburgh to Avignon for my late dad, he had to change stations in both London and Paris. Might be different now, but I suspect the two countries both suffer from their capital=galactic centre symdrome and can't imagine that anyone might not automatically want to pay homage.
Certainly an issue in nations with Primate Cities. I mean, Londoners and Parisians do have a point. They are both fantastic cities. But we really do need to consider rail bypasses for both.
I'm not sure it is actually necessary to destroy Camden as Leon fears - my friend who lives there showed me once a spur running off the main line (into Euston) at the Regents Park Road bridge that headed off east and entered a tangle of tracks and viaducts in the former gas-metery wastelands north of the British Library, so there's something right there, though needing engineering at the St Pancras end. Maybe someone knows why this wasn't picked up on.
Surely decisions on Begum have to be guided by counter terrorist & military intelligence ?
So we don't have legal rights if there are military and terrorism considerations?
We do, I'd place national security at the top of the pile in terms of consideration though. The spooks might not think she's a threat, or they may do. I'm not qualified to say, and it's not going to be public knowledge. I think the courts have a very high regard for this sort of thing judging by the decision to back the Home office, which surprised me slightly.
There leads a kafka-esque authoritarian state. If the government can simply remove rights because they have info neither the courts, nor the citizens are allowed to see then we don't really have those rights. If she really is an ongoing threat I fail to see why she can't be convicted and serve a very long time in a secure prison. I think she should be convicted and serve a fairly long time regardless of ongoing threat.
Evidence of being a threat in future is not necessarily evidence sufficient to convict of crimes committed.
"Villagers 'should rely on torches to see at night': Street lighting in rural areas should be scaled back and SUV drivers hit with higher taxes, Government's climate adviser says
Lord Deben called for lighting in rural areas to be scaled back for the climate He also warned against building hundreds of homes in villages where most workers would have to commute by car - adding to pollution Lord Deben, who served in the Cabinet as John Gummer, also called for higher taxes on sports utility vehicles to reflect their greater carbon emissions"
"Villagers 'should rely on torches to see at night': Street lighting in rural areas should be scaled back and SUV drivers hit with higher taxes, Government's climate adviser says
Lord Deben called for lighting in rural areas to be scaled back for the climate He also warned against building hundreds of homes in villages where most workers would have to commute by car - adding to pollution Lord Deben, who served in the Cabinet as John Gummer, also called for higher taxes on sports utility vehicles to reflect their greater carbon emissions"
What lights? Round here runners and dog walkers wear torches on their head already as it is pitch black once it gets dark. Great for seeing stars. Unhelpful for anything else.
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Fine but the US, UK and Australia are not strong enough to contain China alone in Asia, they need Japan, S Korea and India on board as well.
Plus we also need France to help us contain Russia and deal with jihadis in Africa and share intelligence on extremists
Expert on all things master of none
Next week the agreement will be signed in the US and India and Japan are to attend, and South Korea are fully behind this
@Philip_Thompson said earlier that you have never lost your remain opinions and I was unsure until I have read a few of your posts and you do seem to have an element of it to be honest
When things calm down I have no doubt France and other allies, not least Canada, will be called on but they will not be in the tripartite inner circle
What a load of nonsense. How can Australia - a minuscule country militarily and economically - suddenly be elevated to one of the three dominant nations on the planet?
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Fine but the US, UK and Australia are not strong enough to contain China alone in Asia, they need Japan, S Korea and India on board as well.
Plus we also need France to help us contain Russia and deal with jihadis in Africa and share intelligence on extremists
Expert on all things master of none
Next week the agreement will be signed in the US and India and Japan are to attend, and South Korea are fully behind this
@Philip_Thompson said earlier that you have never lost your remain opinions and I was unsure until I have read a few of your posts and you do seem to have an element of it to be honest
When things calm down I have no doubt France and other allies, not least Canada, will be called on but they will not be in the tripartite inner circle
Being present is not the same as contributing significant naval and military forces to the effort is it, they need to put funds, submarines and ships to patrolling the South China Sea as well.
Like it or not the reality is that while we and the French can police Europe and much of Africa ourselves, in the Far East our role as policeman ended with the Hong Kong handover and the end of the British Empire, we now will provide only a supporting role at most. The bulk of the effort must come from the Far Eastern powers themselves, India and Australia supported by the USA
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Almost like we never learn.
We need to have a discussion (which we won't have) about the UK's place in the world, militarily. We seem to think it now has something to do with keeping China contained in the Indo-Pacific region.
Fine.
But if this has been thought through, via position papers, strategic defence reviews, and workshopped by all stakeholders I'll stop posting on PB for 20 mins from 3am-5am on a Sunday morning.
It's just Boris (and potentially the General Staff) grandstanding without any regard for what it means in practice should things turn hot.
Edit: and it doesn't even seem to be that. Just us pushing from the back.
A lot of thought has been put into the future of defence and the issues with China.
LOL I'll get some peace.
That said, my point stands (of course it does, this is PB). Between the politicians and the general staff (who produced the document) the UK seems determined to write cheques that we don't want or are unable to cash (cf Iraq, Afghan, etc these past 20 years).
I don't think its accurate at all to compare Iraq/Afghanistan and China.
Its worth thinking about why the USA lost the Vietnam war in 1975 but the Free World won the Cold War and the Berlin Wall fell the following decade.
Asymmetric warfare with medieval savages who don't care if they live or die is a different kettle of fish to a conflict with another major power that does care if they live or die.
The USSR ran out of money, didn't it? We starved them out.
I am not entirely sure that will be the case for the PRC which is still on an upwards trajectory development-wise.
It took forty years of Cold War to bring down the USSR.
It may take fifty years to do similar with China, but we should be seeking to contain them and potentially do that if we can in the meantime.
The USSR couldn't afford to keep up with Ronnie's arms race. China can fund military expansion that dwarfs all other power's apart from the US down the back of the sofa.
In the USSR people were starving to this end; in China last year Bentley sales were up 50% and were within a wheel arch of those to the US.
OpenSea, one of the largest NFT marketplaces, has confirmed that its head of product, Nate Chastain, used insider knowledge to purchase NFTs that he knew were going to be displayed on the front page of OpenSea ahead of general release.
The accusations first arose on Twitter, with one user called ‘Zuwu’ saying that Chastain seems to be selling these pieces “shortly after the front-page-hype spike for profits.”
Yesterday, on September 15, OpenSea published a post confirming Chastain’s actions.
The most ridiculous thing about it, he only made 20 ETH. Which at $3-4k per ETh sounds like a lot of money, until you see how much money OpenSea is making per day. They are making millions and millions, as they take 2.5% of every sale.
The whole NFT market is just one giant MLM scheme, people hype up a project to get other people interested, flip their crap to them, who then try and flip it to somebody...and the top of the chain, then move onto the next bag of shit to flip.
One user has made $15 million out of this so far this year.
I shouldn't complain though, selling shovels to all these idiots has made me a decent chunk of change past few weeks.
The whole thing sounds utterly bonkers.
As I have said before, there is something in NFTs and I can see this idea being built upon e.g. all your tickets for a gig / sporting event could be an NFT, then you know you got a real one (especially if you buy it second hand) and when you try to go in the venue know you have got a real one.
Same with digital art. I can see there being a shutterstock type site, you get to use whatever you see for your ad / website and the artist automatically gets a royalty. And you can also easily check if somebody is using your art without paying.
HOWEVER....at the moment, 100s of these stupid profile cartoon avatars are trading for $1000s, $10ks, $100k, even $1 millions, and the value swings massively every day.....absolute insanity and some people are going to be left holding the bag and lose a lot of money.
But obviously it has driven up the price of the crypto's that are the main coins for them. One, SOL, went from ~$20 to over $200 in a few weeks. Kerrrrrching....
Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, said the mandatory vaccination policy was “very unfair” and that about 2,000 of the region’s care home workers faced losing their jobs overnight unless they received their first jab within hours.
King of the North is totally wrong side of the argument on this. It really isn't unfair at all. All adults have now had months to organize getting jabbed, and you have a duty of care to the people you look after.
The reality is that it's going to put a lot of pressure on the sector as those who don't want to be jabbed (probably the main reason now for unjabbed staff in this sector) leave. In other times, this might not have mattered, but with the current state of the jobs market, they will be difficult or expensive to replace. Choosing between "not enough staff" and "all staff jabbed" is not necessarily clear cut.
Yes it is. These staff are literally dealing with the most vulnerable to the virus. No excuses, get the jab or get out of the sector.
Anyone who wants to keep their job will go get the jab.
The problem is that quite a few of them probably don't particularly want to keep their job and are likely eyeing better paid and less stressful work elsewhere.
That's not a problem.
If that gets the unvaccinated away from the vulnerable then that's a win.
And if they can find a job happy to hire them that makes them happier then good luck to them too.
Good luck answering the "why did you leave your last employer" question at interview if it gets asked though.
More pertinently, the problem is that there is a desperate shortage of care staff at the moment, and nobody wants to do anything to make the situation even worse. I agree that care workers should certainly be vaccinated, but if the choice is between an unvaccinated carer and no carer, then things are less clear cut!
Not for me it's not. I'd rather a vaccinated agency worker be there while recruitment proceeds than an unvaccinated one passing on the virus.
Anyone who knows they're working with the very most vulnerable in society that can't be arsed or doesn't want to get vaccinated can't be a very good carer anyway.
You miss my point again. There is a dire shortage of carers. If you get rid of the unvaccinated ones, there will be even fewer carers, and people will suffer from lack of care. It may well be that the consequences of the resulting loss of care are worse than the consequences of allowing unvaccinated carers in. That's why it's not clear cut.
I get your point. I'm simply making a value call that it is clear cut for me. I'd rather a bigger staff shortage and none unvaccinated (and I expect most unvaccinated will get the vaccine to save their job anyway) rather than continuing with the unvaccinated being free to infect the very most vulnerable in society.
Even if the outcome is more dead people?
Edit: Also, your bit in brackets is currently questionable. Working in care is a pretty tough job, and there are lots of less stressful jobs around at the moment.
Continuing to let the unvaccinated infect residents will result in more dead people.
As for other jobs being available, there's a difference between someone who has the get up and go to go seek and get another job, and people who are settled in their job and are facing a deadline to get the jab or get sacked.
For the latter, going to get the jab is a lot easier (even if they don't want to) than facing the uncertainties of unemployment and the job hunting.
As I said earlier, in the home I know all the vaccine refuseniks got the jab last week in the face of the deadline.
OpenSea, one of the largest NFT marketplaces, has confirmed that its head of product, Nate Chastain, used insider knowledge to purchase NFTs that he knew were going to be displayed on the front page of OpenSea ahead of general release.
The accusations first arose on Twitter, with one user called ‘Zuwu’ saying that Chastain seems to be selling these pieces “shortly after the front-page-hype spike for profits.”
Yesterday, on September 15, OpenSea published a post confirming Chastain’s actions.
The most ridiculous thing about it, he only made 20 ETH. Which at $3-4k per ETh sounds like a lot of money, until you see how much money OpenSea is making per day. They are making millions and millions, as they take 2.5% of every sale.
The whole NFT market is just one giant MLM scheme, people hype up a project to get other people interested, flip their crap to them, who then try and flip it to somebody...and the top of the chain, then move onto the next bag of shit to flip.
One user has made $15 million out of this so far this year.
I shouldn't complain though, selling shovels to all these idiots has made me a decent chunk of change past few weeks.
The whole thing sounds utterly bonkers.
As I have said before, there is something in NFTs and I can see this idea being built upon e.g. all your tickets for a gig / sporting event could be an NFT, then you know you got a real one (especially if you buy it second hand) and when you try to go in the venue know you have got a real one.
Same with digital art. I can see there being a shutterstock type site, you get to use whatever you see for your ad / website and the artist automatically gets a royalty. And you can also easily check if somebody is using your art without paying.
HOWEVER....at the moment, 100s of these stupid profile cartoon avatars are trading for $1000s, $10ks, $100k, even $1 millions, and the value swings massively every day.....absolute insanity and some people are going to be left holding the bag and lose a lot of money.
But obviously it has driven up the price of the crypto's that are the main coins for them. One, SOL, went from ~$20 to over $200 in a few weeks. Kerrrrrching....
TLDR: the whole thing is utterly bonkers
There will be a cracking Christmas at Chez Urquhart this year....especially as I am explicitly banned from spread betting on the Ryder Cup :-)
SPD and Grune and Linke still only gets to 48% though, SPD and Grune and FDP does get to 50%
You do realise that this poll (like most recent polls) would give SPD+Greens+Left a majority, don't you? Oh never mind.
The SPD, Greens and Linke would also have had a majority in 2005 and 2013 too but the SPD did not do it as they would not touch the Stalinist Linke.
In 2017 the CDU/CSU, AfD and FDP would have had a majority but the CDU did not do it as it would have meant dealing with the populist right AfD.
If the SPD win most seats and do a deal with the Linke as well as the Greens rather than the FDP or the Union as per the previous Grand Coalitions then it would change German politics for good and shift it from the centre to the extremes.
Inevitably the Union as it moves right in opposition would then also start to have to consider future deals with the AfD in response. The FDP having been snubbed by the SPD would also move firmly into the right of centre camp
I broadly share your analysis, though I think one should recognise that the Linke leadership have shifted from being a party mainly of GDR nostalgics (which I think is what you're referring to as Stalinist) to a more conventional left-wing party much like the SV in Norway which is poised to join the government. Ironically they would probably be less comfortable coalition partners, since the old guard were used to the compromises needed in governing, while the new left now in charge are more Corbynist insurgent types.
Also, the FDP might choose to occupy the centre ground which the leftward move would have partly ceded, rather than move right to become a sub-CDU.
Agree wiuth much of that but if the SPD-Greens-Linke form a government then inevitably they would form the main left block in future elections with the CDU/CSU-FDP-AfD increasingly becoming the main right block.
The centrist politics whereby the FDP were kingmakers or the SPD and CDU/CSU formed grand coalitions to keep out the extremes would be over
SPD and Grune and Linke still only gets to 48% though, SPD and Grune and FDP does get to 50%
I think this is an outlier for die Linke but I would be surprised if they poll less than 6% and get less than 3 constituency seats in East Berlin. I would be surprised if they got any constituency elsewhere though (like Leipzig/Dresden etc)
Assuming that FW and Sonstige(others) are not in the final shareout as they are below 5%, then 48 out of 90 will definitely be above 50%, therefore a majority.
I agree about the Linke 8% being an outlier (the other poll on the same day showed them still at 6). But as Gary and Davey say, the sPD is likely to have a choice - Greens plus FDP or Linke. I think Scholz would prefer the FDP, though that might lose some voters on the left. Probably we won't know at once as Scholz will trade off one against the other in negotiations.
On a lighter note, this is what the Greens in Germany want for a sleeper train network. It gets my vote!
Mine too. Some impossibly romantic journeys there. London to Venice. London to Barcelona. London to Naples. Wake up looking at Capri!
Edinburgh to Athens would be the ultimate but they've gotta get up and cross stations in London. Sorry about that
Yes, that's one reason why we need to build a direct link to HS2, so trains from Scotland/northern England can go direct to the continent. That said, I believe Paris suffers from the same issue (I could be wrong, I dare say the PB Train Experts will clarify).
From booking trains from Edinburgh to Avignon for my late dad, he had to change stations in both London and Paris. Might be different now, but I suspect the two countries both suffer from their capital=galactic centre symdrome and can't imagine that anyone might not automatically want to pay homage.
Certainly an issue in nations with Primate Cities. I mean, Londoners and Parisians do have a point. They are both fantastic cities. But we really do need to consider rail bypasses for both.
I'm not sure it is actually necessary to destroy Camden as Leon fears - my friend who lives there showed me once a spur running off the main line (into Euston) at the Regents Park Road bridge that headed off east and entered a tangle of tracks and viaducts in the former gas-metery wastelands north of the British Library, so there's something right there, though needing engineering at the St Pancras end. Maybe someone knows why this wasn't picked up on.
One would certainly hope there are options. There is indeed a spaghetti nest of railway lines up there. You'd think something would be possible?
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The way I "see" it (pun intended) is we seem to have lost 2 eyes. Not usually a good thing, that, but possibly I'm missing the point, perhaps even the entire point. If it's to do with our Global Britain "tilt to the Pacific" this would explain why I am, since I very much miss the point of that.
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Fine but the US, UK and Australia are not strong enough to contain China alone in Asia, they need Japan, S Korea and India on board as well.
Plus we also need France to help us contain Russia and deal with jihadis in Africa and share intelligence on extremists
Expert on all things master of none
Next week the agreement will be signed in the US and India and Japan are to attend, and South Korea are fully behind this
@Philip_Thompson said earlier that you have never lost your remain opinions and I was unsure until I have read a few of your posts and you do seem to have an element of it to be honest
When things calm down I have no doubt France and other allies, not least Canada, will be called on but they will not be in the tripartite inner circle
What a load of nonsense. How can Australia - a minuscule country militarily and economically - suddenly be elevated to one of the three dominant nations on the planet?
By partnering with the most dominant nation along with a Top 5 nation.
Rupert Murdoch has signed up Piers Morgan and will launch a new TV network to challenge the BBC and GB News, in a move likely to further inflame Britain's culture wars
Mr. Urquhart, my 'German' mp3 player was made in China as was my 'American' reading light (specifically picked because I saw two I liked and the other was Chinese).
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Fine but the US, UK and Australia are not strong enough to contain China alone in Asia, they need Japan, S Korea and India on board as well.
Plus we also need France to help us contain Russia and deal with jihadis in Africa and share intelligence on extremists
Expert on all things master of none
Next week the agreement will be signed in the US and India and Japan are to attend, and South Korea are fully behind this
@Philip_Thompson said earlier that you have never lost your remain opinions and I was unsure until I have read a few of your posts and you do seem to have an element of it to be honest
When things calm down I have no doubt France and other allies, not least Canada, will be called on but they will not be in the tripartite inner circle
What a load of nonsense. How can Australia - a minuscule country militarily and economically - suddenly be elevated to one of the three dominant nations on the planet?
It's not minuscule militarily. It has the 13th biggest military budget in the world - not massive, but not nothing either
More importantly, it is the biggest base imaginable in the south Indo-Pacific. If you want to contain China, you need a massive aircraft carrier the size of a country. Australia provides that, and multiple minor islands offshore (which may become significant)
And it is full of natural resources which China desperately needs to keep its economy going. You can't easily replace Australian iron, coal, wool, wheat, wine (and much else)
Yes, one of the things a colleague pointed out this morning is the insistence of France to try and do everything in French as being a sticking point to everything involving them. Even now their bitching an moaning is all in French language media with only a few choice statements being made to English language media.
His point was that any information sharing including the French will inevitably result in everything needing to be in French as well as English and that means translators and widening the circle of who has access to highly classified information which is already an issue for the US wrt what is being shared with Australia.
It is interesting how this seems to be very specific to the French. The Germans, for example, seem incredibly relaxed about English being the international language. It is only the French who continue to insist on the use of their own language.
Does this all stem from the fact that for hundreds of years that French was the language of diplomacy and has lost that status?
Absolutely, yes
Hurt pride. The French are extremely proud, and the demotion of their language (so quick and so brutal) hurts very badly, at least in elite intellectual/political circles.
In my experience the average French person by contrast doesn't really give a fuck, they can see reality, and many of them now speak excellent English, the young especially
When I first went to France in the late 80s/90s basically nobody spoke English at all. All signs in historic places of interest were in French only. A few times I had to offer to step in as a translator to help fellow tourists.
By the late 2000s pretty much everyone in the tourist industry spoke excellent English (except maybe the occasional waiter). I always get the feeling that my attempts to speak French are now appreciated but not necessary and any replies in French I receive are really to humour my attempt as their English is probably better than my French in practice.
Mr. Urquhart, my 'German' mp3 player was made in China as was my 'American' reading light (specifically picked because I saw two I liked and the other was Chinese).
Separating our economy from China's might lead to some considerable inflation but its something we need to do strategically.
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Fine but the US, UK and Australia are not strong enough to contain China alone in Asia, they need Japan, S Korea and India on board as well.
Plus we also need France to help us contain Russia and deal with jihadis in Africa and share intelligence on extremists
Expert on all things master of none
Next week the agreement will be signed in the US and India and Japan are to attend, and South Korea are fully behind this
@Philip_Thompson said earlier that you have never lost your remain opinions and I was unsure until I have read a few of your posts and you do seem to have an element of it to be honest
When things calm down I have no doubt France and other allies, not least Canada, will be called on but they will not be in the tripartite inner circle
What a load of nonsense. How can Australia - a minuscule country militarily and economically - suddenly be elevated to one of the three dominant nations on the planet?
By partnering with the most dominant nation along with a Top 5 nation.
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Fine but the US, UK and Australia are not strong enough to contain China alone in Asia, they need Japan, S Korea and India on board as well.
Plus we also need France to help us contain Russia and deal with jihadis in Africa and share intelligence on extremists
Expert on all things master of none
Next week the agreement will be signed in the US and India and Japan are to attend, and South Korea are fully behind this
@Philip_Thompson said earlier that you have never lost your remain opinions and I was unsure until I have read a few of your posts and you do seem to have an element of it to be honest
When things calm down I have no doubt France and other allies, not least Canada, will be called on but they will not be in the tripartite inner circle
What a load of nonsense. How can Australia - a minuscule country militarily and economically - suddenly be elevated to one of the three dominant nations on the planet?
By partnering with the most dominant nation along with a Top 5 nation.
China is the most dominant nation.
Little Britain is not in top 5
America is the most dominant still and Britain absolutely is in the Top 5.
The reshuffle actually feels like a little of a damp squib to me.
I want to see ideas from the government. Last night's news was a decent start; let's have some more.
Why is Raab still in the Cabinet? A useless Minister. Now dumped at Justice so that one of the most important functions of the state can be messed around with some more by yet another useless incompetent.
We have reached a stage where trials on serious matters are due to start next week with no prosecuting or defence barristers appointed.
Competence would be a start. A welcome one.
I hold no candle for Raab but isn't he a human rights lawyer ?
No.
He wrote a book criticising the Human Rights Act and arguing for it to be repealed or scaled back.
SPD and Grune and Linke still only gets to 48% though, SPD and Grune and FDP does get to 50%
I think this is an outlier for die Linke but I would be surprised if they poll less than 6% and get less than 3 constituency seats in East Berlin. I would be surprised if they got any constituency elsewhere though (like Leipzig/Dresden etc)
Assuming that FW and Sonstige(others) are not in the final shareout as they are below 5%, then 48 out of 90 will definitely be above 50%, therefore a majority.
I agree about the Linke 8% being an outlier (the other poll on the same day showed them still at 6). But as Gary and Davey say, the sPD is likely to have a choice - Greens plus FDP or Linke. I think Scholz would prefer the FDP, though that might lose some voters on the left. Probably we won't know at once as Scholz will trade off one against the other in negotiations.
On a lighter note, this is what the Greens in Germany want for a sleeper train network. It gets my vote!
Mine too. Some impossibly romantic journeys there. London to Venice. London to Barcelona. London to Naples. Wake up looking at Capri!
Edinburgh to Athens would be the ultimate but they've gotta get up and cross stations in London. Sorry about that
Yes, that's one reason why we need to build a direct link to HS2, so trains from Scotland/northern England can go direct to the continent. That said, I believe Paris suffers from the same issue (I could be wrong, I dare say the PB Train Experts will clarify).
From booking trains from Edinburgh to Avignon for my late dad, he had to change stations in both London and Paris. Might be different now, but I suspect the two countries both suffer from their capital=galactic centre symdrome and can't imagine that anyone might not automatically want to pay homage.
Certainly an issue in nations with Primate Cities. I mean, Londoners and Parisians do have a point. They are both fantastic cities. But we really do need to consider rail bypasses for both.
I'm not sure it is actually necessary to destroy Camden as Leon fears - my friend who lives there showed me once a spur running off the main line (into Euston) at the Regents Park Road bridge that headed off east and entered a tangle of tracks and viaducts in the former gas-metery wastelands north of the British Library, so there's something right there, though needing engineering at the St Pancras end. Maybe someone knows why this wasn't picked up on.
"the gas metery wastelands north of the British Library" are now, in the main, the wonderful King's Cross redevelopment, full of life, bars, colleges, offices, restaurants, students and homes. The actual gasometers have been turned into luxury flats
SPD and Grune and Linke still only gets to 48% though, SPD and Grune and FDP does get to 50%
I think this is an outlier for die Linke but I would be surprised if they poll less than 6% and get less than 3 constituency seats in East Berlin. I would be surprised if they got any constituency elsewhere though (like Leipzig/Dresden etc)
Assuming that FW and Sonstige(others) are not in the final shareout as they are below 5%, then 48 out of 90 will definitely be above 50%, therefore a majority.
I agree about the Linke 8% being an outlier (the other poll on the same day showed them still at 6). But as Gary and Davey say, the sPD is likely to have a choice - Greens plus FDP or Linke. I think Scholz would prefer the FDP, though that might lose some voters on the left. Probably we won't know at once as Scholz will trade off one against the other in negotiations.
On a lighter note, this is what the Greens in Germany want for a sleeper train network. It gets my vote!
Mine too. Some impossibly romantic journeys there. London to Venice. London to Barcelona. London to Naples. Wake up looking at Capri!
Edinburgh to Athens would be the ultimate but they've gotta get up and cross stations in London. Sorry about that
Yes, that's one reason why we need to build a direct link to HS2, so trains from Scotland/northern England can go direct to the continent. That said, I believe Paris suffers from the same issue (I could be wrong, I dare say the PB Train Experts will clarify).
From booking trains from Edinburgh to Avignon for my late dad, he had to change stations in both London and Paris. Might be different now, but I suspect the two countries both suffer from their capital=galactic centre symdrome and can't imagine that anyone might not automatically want to pay homage.
Certainly an issue in nations with Primate Cities. I mean, Londoners and Parisians do have a point. They are both fantastic cities. But we really do need to consider rail bypasses for both.
I'm not sure it is actually necessary to destroy Camden as Leon fears - my friend who lives there showed me once a spur running off the main line (into Euston) at the Regents Park Road bridge that headed off east and entered a tangle of tracks and viaducts in the former gas-metery wastelands north of the British Library, so there's something right there, though needing engineering at the St Pancras end. Maybe someone knows why this wasn't picked up on.
One would certainly hope there are options. There is indeed a spaghetti nest of railway lines up there. You'd think something would be possible?
Leon's 'destroy Camden' comments are just repetition of the Camden NIMBYs who were against the scheme - led in the media by a certain Stanley Johnson (I'm sure I've heard of him before?)
Besides, as SeanT Leon knows all too well, Camden has been cut through many times; the Regent's Canal, the railway in the 1850s, roads and developments - and it still manages to thrive.
In reality, the scheme was canned because it was massively expensive for very little benefit. It as a nice-to-have, not a necessity. So it was the first thing axed on the scheme.
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Fine but the US, UK and Australia are not strong enough to contain China alone in Asia, they need Japan, S Korea and India on board as well.
Plus we also need France to help us contain Russia and deal with jihadis in Africa and share intelligence on extremists
Expert on all things master of none
Next week the agreement will be signed in the US and India and Japan are to attend, and South Korea are fully behind this
@Philip_Thompson said earlier that you have never lost your remain opinions and I was unsure until I have read a few of your posts and you do seem to have an element of it to be honest
When things calm down I have no doubt France and other allies, not least Canada, will be called on but they will not be in the tripartite inner circle
What a load of nonsense. How can Australia - a minuscule country militarily and economically - suddenly be elevated to one of the three dominant nations on the planet?
By partnering with the most dominant nation along with a Top 5 nation.
China is the most dominant nation.
Little Britain is not in top 5
America is the most dominant still and Britain absolutely is in the Top 5.
Rupert Murdoch has signed up Piers Morgan and will launch a new TV network to challenge the BBC and GB News, in a move likely to further inflame Britain's culture wars
The reshuffle actually feels like a little of a damp squib to me.
I want to see ideas from the government. Last night's news was a decent start; let's have some more.
Why is Raab still in the Cabinet? A useless Minister. Now dumped at Justice so that one of the most important functions of the state can be messed around with some more by yet another useless incompetent.
We have reached a stage where trials on serious matters are due to start next week with no prosecuting or defence barristers appointed.
Competence would be a start. A welcome one.
I hold no candle for Raab but isn't he a human rights lawyer ?
No.
He wrote a book criticising the Human Rights Act and arguing for it to be repealed or scaled back.
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Fine but the US, UK and Australia are not strong enough to contain China alone in Asia, they need Japan, S Korea and India on board as well.
Plus we also need France to help us contain Russia and deal with jihadis in Africa and share intelligence on extremists
Expert on all things master of none
Next week the agreement will be signed in the US and India and Japan are to attend, and South Korea are fully behind this
@Philip_Thompson said earlier that you have never lost your remain opinions and I was unsure until I have read a few of your posts and you do seem to have an element of it to be honest
When things calm down I have no doubt France and other allies, not least Canada, will be called on but they will not be in the tripartite inner circle
What a load of nonsense. How can Australia - a minuscule country militarily and economically - suddenly be elevated to one of the three dominant nations on the planet?
By partnering with the most dominant nation along with a Top 5 nation.
China is the most dominant nation.
Little Britain is not in top 5
America is the most dominant still and Britain absolutely is in the Top 5.
No mate
Yes.
Which 5 nations do you think are ahead of the UK both economically and militarily?
SPD and Grune and Linke still only gets to 48% though, SPD and Grune and FDP does get to 50%
I think this is an outlier for die Linke but I would be surprised if they poll less than 6% and get less than 3 constituency seats in East Berlin. I would be surprised if they got any constituency elsewhere though (like Leipzig/Dresden etc)
Assuming that FW and Sonstige(others) are not in the final shareout as they are below 5%, then 48 out of 90 will definitely be above 50%, therefore a majority.
I agree about the Linke 8% being an outlier (the other poll on the same day showed them still at 6). But as Gary and Davey say, the sPD is likely to have a choice - Greens plus FDP or Linke. I think Scholz would prefer the FDP, though that might lose some voters on the left. Probably we won't know at once as Scholz will trade off one against the other in negotiations.
On a lighter note, this is what the Greens in Germany want for a sleeper train network. It gets my vote!
Mine too. Some impossibly romantic journeys there. London to Venice. London to Barcelona. London to Naples. Wake up looking at Capri!
Edinburgh to Athens would be the ultimate but they've gotta get up and cross stations in London. Sorry about that
Yes, that's one reason why we need to build a direct link to HS2, so trains from Scotland/northern England can go direct to the continent. That said, I believe Paris suffers from the same issue (I could be wrong, I dare say the PB Train Experts will clarify).
From booking trains from Edinburgh to Avignon for my late dad, he had to change stations in both London and Paris. Might be different now, but I suspect the two countries both suffer from their capital=galactic centre symdrome and can't imagine that anyone might not automatically want to pay homage.
Certainly an issue in nations with Primate Cities. I mean, Londoners and Parisians do have a point. They are both fantastic cities. But we really do need to consider rail bypasses for both.
I'm not sure it is actually necessary to destroy Camden as Leon fears - my friend who lives there showed me once a spur running off the main line (into Euston) at the Regents Park Road bridge that headed off east and entered a tangle of tracks and viaducts in the former gas-metery wastelands north of the British Library, so there's something right there, though needing engineering at the St Pancras end. Maybe someone knows why this wasn't picked up on.
"the gas metery wastelands north of the British Library" are now, in the main, the wonderful King's Cross redevelopment, full of life, bars, colleges, offices, restaurants, students and homes. The actual gasometers have been turned into luxury flats
Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, said the mandatory vaccination policy was “very unfair” and that about 2,000 of the region’s care home workers faced losing their jobs overnight unless they received their first jab within hours.
King of the North is totally wrong side of the argument on this. It really isn't unfair at all. All adults have now had months to organize getting jabbed, and you have a duty of care to the people you look after.
The reality is that it's going to put a lot of pressure on the sector as those who don't want to be jabbed (probably the main reason now for unjabbed staff in this sector) leave. In other times, this might not have mattered, but with the current state of the jobs market, they will be difficult or expensive to replace. Choosing between "not enough staff" and "all staff jabbed" is not necessarily clear cut.
Yes it is. These staff are literally dealing with the most vulnerable to the virus. No excuses, get the jab or get out of the sector.
Anyone who wants to keep their job will go get the jab.
The problem is that quite a few of them probably don't particularly want to keep their job and are likely eyeing better paid and less stressful work elsewhere.
That's not a problem.
If that gets the unvaccinated away from the vulnerable then that's a win.
And if they can find a job happy to hire them that makes them happier then good luck to them too.
Good luck answering the "why did you leave your last employer" question at interview if it gets asked though.
More pertinently, the problem is that there is a desperate shortage of care staff at the moment, and nobody wants to do anything to make the situation even worse. I agree that care workers should certainly be vaccinated, but if the choice is between an unvaccinated carer and no carer, then things are less clear cut!
Not for me it's not. I'd rather a vaccinated agency worker be there while recruitment proceeds than an unvaccinated one passing on the virus.
Anyone who knows they're working with the very most vulnerable in society that can't be arsed or doesn't want to get vaccinated can't be a very good carer anyway.
You miss my point again. There is a dire shortage of carers. If you get rid of the unvaccinated ones, there will be even fewer carers, and people will suffer from lack of care. It may well be that the consequences of the resulting loss of care are worse than the consequences of allowing unvaccinated carers in. That's why it's not clear cut.
I get your point. I'm simply making a value call that it is clear cut for me. I'd rather a bigger staff shortage and none unvaccinated (and I expect most unvaccinated will get the vaccine to save their job anyway) rather than continuing with the unvaccinated being free to infect the very most vulnerable in society.
Even if the outcome is more dead people?
Edit: Also, your bit in brackets is currently questionable. Working in care is a pretty tough job, and there are lots of less stressful jobs around at the moment.
Continuing to let the unvaccinated infect residents will result in more dead people.
As for other jobs being available, there's a difference between someone who has the get up and go to go seek and get another job, and people who are settled in their job and are facing a deadline to get the jab or get sacked.
For the latter, going to get the jab is a lot easier (even if they don't want to) than facing the uncertainties of unemployment and the job hunting.
As I said earlier, in the home I know all the vaccine refuseniks got the jab last week in the face of the deadline.
Whether continuing to let the unvaccinated infect residents will result in more dead people than the potential loss of care due to loss of staff if unvaccinated people are sacked is not at all clear. I really don't understand how you are failing to see that there is a trade-off involved here. It may be that requiring care staff to be vaccinated helps save lives, but it is nowhere near certain given the points I've mentioned.
Mr. Urquhart, my 'German' mp3 player was made in China as was my 'American' reading light (specifically picked because I saw two I liked and the other was Chinese).
Separating our economy from China's might lead to some considerable inflation but its something we need to do strategically.
Loosening a touch, you mean. We won't be separating.
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Fine but the US, UK and Australia are not strong enough to contain China alone in Asia, they need Japan, S Korea and India on board as well.
Plus we also need France to help us contain Russia and deal with jihadis in Africa and share intelligence on extremists
Expert on all things master of none
Next week the agreement will be signed in the US and India and Japan are to attend, and South Korea are fully behind this
@Philip_Thompson said earlier that you have never lost your remain opinions and I was unsure until I have read a few of your posts and you do seem to have an element of it to be honest
When things calm down I have no doubt France and other allies, not least Canada, will be called on but they will not be in the tripartite inner circle
What a load of nonsense. How can Australia - a minuscule country militarily and economically - suddenly be elevated to one of the three dominant nations on the planet?
By partnering with the most dominant nation along with a Top 5 nation.
China is the most dominant nation.
Little Britain is not in top 5
America is the most dominant still and Britain absolutely is in the Top 5.
I would say America, then China. Then who? Russia has twice the population and a bigger military but a smaller economy. France is, to all extents and purposes, equal to the UK. Germany and Japan have bigger economies but smaller militaries. India has far more people but a roughly equal economy to ours. I don't know where they are militarily but they're a nuclear power. Pakistan, Iran, Saudi, all not to be sneezed at, but I would put them lower than the aforementioned. AFAICS there is a top two and then six of roughly equal importance behind that, of which the UK is one.
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Fine but the US, UK and Australia are not strong enough to contain China alone in Asia, they need Japan, S Korea and India on board as well.
Plus we also need France to help us contain Russia and deal with jihadis in Africa and share intelligence on extremists
Expert on all things master of none
Next week the agreement will be signed in the US and India and Japan are to attend, and South Korea are fully behind this
@Philip_Thompson said earlier that you have never lost your remain opinions and I was unsure until I have read a few of your posts and you do seem to have an element of it to be honest
When things calm down I have no doubt France and other allies, not least Canada, will be called on but they will not be in the tripartite inner circle
What a load of nonsense. How can Australia - a minuscule country militarily and economically - suddenly be elevated to one of the three dominant nations on the planet?
By partnering with the most dominant nation along with a Top 5 nation.
China is the most dominant nation.
Little Britain is not in top 5
America is the most dominant still and Britain absolutely is in the Top 5.
No mate
Yes.
Which 5 nations do you think are ahead of the UK both economically and militarily?
Economically USA,China,Japan,Germany and India have a greater share of World GDP UK is 6th
Rupert Murdoch has signed up Piers Morgan and will launch a new TV network to challenge the BBC and GB News, in a move likely to further inflame Britain's culture wars
"Villagers 'should rely on torches to see at night': Street lighting in rural areas should be scaled back and SUV drivers hit with higher taxes, Government's climate adviser says
Lord Deben called for lighting in rural areas to be scaled back for the climate He also warned against building hundreds of homes in villages where most workers would have to commute by car - adding to pollution Lord Deben, who served in the Cabinet as John Gummer, also called for higher taxes on sports utility vehicles to reflect their greater carbon emissions"
Fascinating. I have never lived anywhere which isn't pink on that map.
I often wonder whether there is a simple solution to this. If you've ever flown over Britain at night, its striking how so much from street lights goes upwards. I wonder whether a simple curved mirror - a foot or two wide - over the top of the street light would focus much more downwards, allowing us to use lower wattages.
I have no expertise in this or any reason to think I should be better at designing a street light than a street light designer. But still.
(Once that gets off the ground, I'll develop my idea for reducing wear and tear on aircraft tyres.)
Conveyor belt runways, or electric motors that spin up the wheels to 150mph?
Simpler than that - a sort of scoop-windmill on the wheel of the plane, such that when the wheel comes down it starts spinning, ultimately getting close to the relative speed of the plane vs the air. It wouldn't get up to 150mph, because friction. But even getting up to half that would help. Unless the friction of non-spinning tyre on runway is essential to slowing the aircraft down.
Your issue with getting the wheel spinning is going to be inertia - on larger planes they weigh several hundred kilos, and even with a new bearing will still take quite the force to spin up.
The friction of non-spinning tyre on the runway in slowing the plane down, is very marginal.
The biggest problem is going to be increasing wind resistance leading to more fuel burn. Planes have to fly at a set speed on approach, as directed by controllers to space the planes correctly, then reducing to the landing speed based on plane type and weight. The additional drag caused by the scoops means the planes would need to use more throttle, burning more fuel, with the gear down. It’s likely that the additional cost of fuel would be higher than the cost of the wear to the tyres.
Thanks for indulging me in this. But aren't you trying to slow the plane down at that point anyway? When you are coming into land, isn't more drag a good thing - hence the use of flaps?
Yes, the flaps induce more drag, as does the landing gear. But flying at a steady speed, which planes do when manoevering, requires more fuel the more drag is induced. Now, they can’t fly with the throttles at idle as they come in to land, because they take a few seconds to spool up from idle, and they to be more responsive than that in the event of a go-around - so they use around 30% throttle to balance the flaps. The flaps also provide a useful function of lowering the stall speed, which lowers the landing speed and reduces the runway length required for the landing.
The fact remains that adding drag uses more fuel for the same constant speed, and the pilots are flying to a set of constant speeds when landing, rather than continually slowing down.
Also, as mentioned, the gyroscopic effects of the rotating wheels on turns, and any system to spool up the wheels adds weight to the aircraft, which translates into fuel burn all the time. Use of electric motors to spool the wheels has been looked at, and dismissed on grounds of adding unnecessary weight and complexity., and the potential to distract pilots at a point of high workload.
Is Boris making a statement about AUUKUS in the House today? If so, Sir Keir should go with the following questions.
Does this new alliance require us to provide specific military capabilities? If so will they require additional funding.
Will we be legally obliged to commit combat troops under the new alliance and if so under what circumstances?
Intelligence is to be shared. What intelligence is to be shared with whom. Are there any restrictions on what intelligence we must share and who decides this?
Technology is to be shared. Ditto.
Will this new alliance require the permanent stationing of British armed forces in the Indo-Pacific region?
Surely the most important question is could no-one think of a better acronym than AUUKUS? Because if they can't I doubt they can save us anyway.
Small point but it is now AUKUS
CAUKUS by next month?
China?!
Of course, if France replaced Australia we'd be left with FUKUS or replacing US then AUFUK, both of which could be quite apt
Independent Scotland could give USASUK or AUSSUK. But I think getting France, Canada and South Korea on board would really open up the childish swearing possibilities.
Nothing will beat UKok.
Ladbrokesexchange.com when Ladbrokes first took over Betdaq is hard to beat. Brings together political betting and the trans debate all in one url.
IT information site experts-exchange.com didn’t use to have the hyphen, until someone pointed it out to them…
SPD and Grune and Linke still only gets to 48% though, SPD and Grune and FDP does get to 50%
I think this is an outlier for die Linke but I would be surprised if they poll less than 6% and get less than 3 constituency seats in East Berlin. I would be surprised if they got any constituency elsewhere though (like Leipzig/Dresden etc)
Assuming that FW and Sonstige(others) are not in the final shareout as they are below 5%, then 48 out of 90 will definitely be above 50%, therefore a majority.
I agree about the Linke 8% being an outlier (the other poll on the same day showed them still at 6). But as Gary and Davey say, the sPD is likely to have a choice - Greens plus FDP or Linke. I think Scholz would prefer the FDP, though that might lose some voters on the left. Probably we won't know at once as Scholz will trade off one against the other in negotiations.
On a lighter note, this is what the Greens in Germany want for a sleeper train network. It gets my vote!
Mine too. Some impossibly romantic journeys there. London to Venice. London to Barcelona. London to Naples. Wake up looking at Capri!
Edinburgh to Athens would be the ultimate but they've gotta get up and cross stations in London. Sorry about that
Yes, that's one reason why we need to build a direct link to HS2, so trains from Scotland/northern England can go direct to the continent. That said, I believe Paris suffers from the same issue (I could be wrong, I dare say the PB Train Experts will clarify).
You can certainly go from Calais to all points south without having to go via Paris - back in the day when the night trains had motorail attached, we used it to go all sort of places. And used Belgian, Dutch and German motorrail as well, all now sadly defunct, or almost so.
Sean will note that from the old Naples service (which AIR was DB from Düsseldorf) you never got a glimpse of Capri from the train, it being the other side of the town, and you woke up on the North Italian plains and then sat in the train until mid afternoon while it trundled its way down the peninsula.
The old sleeper services had the lowest priority on the network, would often be shunted unto sidings or left hanging about during the night while other trains went through, and the northern Italian ones deliberately went slow, otherwise you would arrive in the small hours.
Combining sleepers with high speed would indeed be an innovation, but when you think how far you could get on an HS train in six or seven hours, you only need it for the very longest (and hence least common) journeys like London to Seville and the like.
SPD and Grune and Linke still only gets to 48% though, SPD and Grune and FDP does get to 50%
I think this is an outlier for die Linke but I would be surprised if they poll less than 6% and get less than 3 constituency seats in East Berlin. I would be surprised if they got any constituency elsewhere though (like Leipzig/Dresden etc)
Assuming that FW and Sonstige(others) are not in the final shareout as they are below 5%, then 48 out of 90 will definitely be above 50%, therefore a majority.
I agree about the Linke 8% being an outlier (the other poll on the same day showed them still at 6). But as Gary and Davey say, the sPD is likely to have a choice - Greens plus FDP or Linke. I think Scholz would prefer the FDP, though that might lose some voters on the left. Probably we won't know at once as Scholz will trade off one against the other in negotiations.
On a lighter note, this is what the Greens in Germany want for a sleeper train network. It gets my vote!
Mine too. Some impossibly romantic journeys there. London to Venice. London to Barcelona. London to Naples. Wake up looking at Capri!
Edinburgh to Athens would be the ultimate but they've gotta get up and cross stations in London. Sorry about that
Yes, that's one reason why we need to build a direct link to HS2, so trains from Scotland/northern England can go direct to the continent. That said, I believe Paris suffers from the same issue (I could be wrong, I dare say the PB Train Experts will clarify).
From booking trains from Edinburgh to Avignon for my late dad, he had to change stations in both London and Paris. Might be different now, but I suspect the two countries both suffer from their capital=galactic centre symdrome and can't imagine that anyone might not automatically want to pay homage.
Certainly an issue in nations with Primate Cities. I mean, Londoners and Parisians do have a point. They are both fantastic cities. But we really do need to consider rail bypasses for both.
I'm not sure it is actually necessary to destroy Camden as Leon fears - my friend who lives there showed me once a spur running off the main line (into Euston) at the Regents Park Road bridge that headed off east and entered a tangle of tracks and viaducts in the former gas-metery wastelands north of the British Library, so there's something right there, though needing engineering at the St Pancras end. Maybe someone knows why this wasn't picked up on.
It was abadoned not on cost grounds (about £100m if I recall) but because it would need not only schengen passport controls at each city, but also siloed, security-checked carriages for continent-bound passengers.
The security (and technical) requirements for eurotunnel to let a train through are onerous. A continental firm is currently trying to persuade eurotunnel to relax them so the Amsterdam to Vienna sleeper could start at London, but not having any luck.
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Fine but the US, UK and Australia are not strong enough to contain China alone in Asia, they need Japan, S Korea and India on board as well.
Plus we also need France to help us contain Russia and deal with jihadis in Africa and share intelligence on extremists
Expert on all things master of none
Next week the agreement will be signed in the US and India and Japan are to attend, and South Korea are fully behind this
@Philip_Thompson said earlier that you have never lost your remain opinions and I was unsure until I have read a few of your posts and you do seem to have an element of it to be honest
When things calm down I have no doubt France and other allies, not least Canada, will be called on but they will not be in the tripartite inner circle
What a load of nonsense. How can Australia - a minuscule country militarily and economically - suddenly be elevated to one of the three dominant nations on the planet?
By partnering with the most dominant nation along with a Top 5 nation.
China is the most dominant nation.
Little Britain is not in top 5
America is the most dominant still and Britain absolutely is in the Top 5.
No mate
Yes.
Which 5 nations do you think are ahead of the UK both economically and militarily?
Economically USA,China,Japan,Germany and India have a greater share of World GDP UK is 6th
Whereas Japan and Germany may be ahead economically but they lack any serious force projection that the UK has. Combine military and economy and the UK easily justifies its top 5 spot.
For day trains, on certain days of the week, it is possible to go from St Pancras to Monaco or Antibes with only a single change at Lille Europe, no need to change at Marseilles or Nice. About 11 hours all in though…
SPD and Grune and Linke still only gets to 48% though, SPD and Grune and FDP does get to 50%
I think this is an outlier for die Linke but I would be surprised if they poll less than 6% and get less than 3 constituency seats in East Berlin. I would be surprised if they got any constituency elsewhere though (like Leipzig/Dresden etc)
Assuming that FW and Sonstige(others) are not in the final shareout as they are below 5%, then 48 out of 90 will definitely be above 50%, therefore a majority.
I agree about the Linke 8% being an outlier (the other poll on the same day showed them still at 6). But as Gary and Davey say, the sPD is likely to have a choice - Greens plus FDP or Linke. I think Scholz would prefer the FDP, though that might lose some voters on the left. Probably we won't know at once as Scholz will trade off one against the other in negotiations.
On a lighter note, this is what the Greens in Germany want for a sleeper train network. It gets my vote!
Mine too. Some impossibly romantic journeys there. London to Venice. London to Barcelona. London to Naples. Wake up looking at Capri!
Edinburgh to Athens would be the ultimate but they've gotta get up and cross stations in London. Sorry about that
Yes, that's one reason why we need to build a direct link to HS2, so trains from Scotland/northern England can go direct to the continent. That said, I believe Paris suffers from the same issue (I could be wrong, I dare say the PB Train Experts will clarify).
From booking trains from Edinburgh to Avignon for my late dad, he had to change stations in both London and Paris. Might be different now, but I suspect the two countries both suffer from their capital=galactic centre symdrome and can't imagine that anyone might not automatically want to pay homage.
Certainly an issue in nations with Primate Cities. I mean, Londoners and Parisians do have a point. They are both fantastic cities. But we really do need to consider rail bypasses for both.
I'm not sure it is actually necessary to destroy Camden as Leon fears - my friend who lives there showed me once a spur running off the main line (into Euston) at the Regents Park Road bridge that headed off east and entered a tangle of tracks and viaducts in the former gas-metery wastelands north of the British Library, so there's something right there, though needing engineering at the St Pancras end. Maybe someone knows why this wasn't picked up on.
One would certainly hope there are options. There is indeed a spaghetti nest of railway lines up there. You'd think something would be possible?
Leon's 'destroy Camden' comments are just repetition of the Camden NIMBYs who were against the scheme - led in the media by a certain Stanley Johnson (I'm sure I've heard of him before?)
Besides, as SeanT Leon knows all too well, Camden has been cut through many times; the Regent's Canal, the railway in the 1850s, roads and developments - and it still manages to thrive.
In reality, the scheme was canned because it was massively expensive for very little benefit. It as a nice-to-have, not a necessity. So it was the first thing axed on the scheme.
The benefit is absolutely massive though – not having to change trains. I mean, I don't care as I live in London. If I lived up north, I'd care – massively.
As if attempting to one-up last week’s stupidity with regards to ivermectin, anti-vaxxers on Facebook and Twitter are advocating for a new and unproven Covid-19 treatment: Betadine, an antiseptic used to treat cuts and scrapes.
Povidone iodine, often sold under the brand-name Betadine, is an iodine-based treatment largely for topical use that kills bacteria. It’s a “commonly used cleanser in the ER and OR,” says Kenneth Weinberg, an emergency room physician in New York City. “If you’re in the ER and someone has a wound to sew it up, you use it to clean with.” When told that anti-vaxxers had taken to gargling with Betadine, Weinberg said, “Fuck me! Of course they are.”
Certainly it puts Macron in an unfortunate spot in the run-up to the presidential elections. And certainly a help for Michel Barnier who already has a reputation for being a seasoned international operator and "hard man" when it comes to negotiations. Macron didn't even get to negotiate - just got shafted without a moment's thought by the perfidious Anglo-Saxons.
This whole little episode has been appallingly handled by the US and Australia. If the idea was to give Boris a brief moment in the sun then it worked; if the idea was to forge a new unity amongst the democratic western nations against the Chinese menace, then it's failed staggeringly. I think we can add this to Afghanistan in the list of Biden's foreign-policy blunders. He's catching up Trump, make no mistake.
The reaction has been weird. It's not clear what if anything the UK gets out of this but the tories are going in dry on each other because France got fucked as if that's all it takes to please them.
If you take away the banal political theatre what has actually happened beyond the existing security and defence frameworks? Nothing, except Australia might get SSNs with British bog roll holders 20 years hence.
The benefits for the UK are more political, for now.
When Remoaners go on about "isolated Brexit Britain" (and for months this has been a valid attack line) the government can now say, Er, fuck off, we've just signed THE MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY TREATY IN DECADES. Britain is firmly allied with her English speaking cousins, we are allied with the world's most powerful nation, we are trying to contain China while the EU wibbles on about data privacy
And it is not just the Brits who are bigging up this agreement. It is huge news in Australia and the Yanks are saying it is "the most important strategic pivot in generations". And the Chinese are reacting fiercely, as you'd expect
Battle lines are being drawn. Britain has chosen. It is no small thing (even if, as you say, the practical changes are limited in the short term)
Fine but the US, UK and Australia are not strong enough to contain China alone in Asia, they need Japan, S Korea and India on board as well.
Plus we also need France to help us contain Russia and deal with jihadis in Africa and share intelligence on extremists
Expert on all things master of none
Next week the agreement will be signed in the US and India and Japan are to attend, and South Korea are fully behind this
@Philip_Thompson said earlier that you have never lost your remain opinions and I was unsure until I have read a few of your posts and you do seem to have an element of it to be honest
When things calm down I have no doubt France and other allies, not least Canada, will be called on but they will not be in the tripartite inner circle
What a load of nonsense. How can Australia - a minuscule country militarily and economically - suddenly be elevated to one of the three dominant nations on the planet?
By partnering with the most dominant nation along with a Top 5 nation.
China is the most dominant nation.
Little Britain is not in top 5
America is the most dominant still and Britain absolutely is in the Top 5.
No mate
Yes.
Which 5 nations do you think are ahead of the UK both economically and militarily?
Economically USA,China,Japan,Germany and India have a greater share of World GDP UK is 6th
Whereas Japan and Germany may be ahead economically but they lack any serious force projection that the UK has. Combine military and economy and the UK easily justifies its top 5 spot.
LOL "virtually tied for 5th" economically ie you admit we aren't top 5 economically
You have to go back to a 2018 military ranking before we dropped to 9th
6th and 9th is not top 5
Instead of we are top 5 lets compromise on we WERE top 5 once
O'Connor, the depositary of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), New Zealand Minister of Trade and Export Growth. The ministers of the two countries also held a teleconference to communicate on the follow-up work related to China's formal application for membership.
SPD and Grune and Linke still only gets to 48% though, SPD and Grune and FDP does get to 50%
I think this is an outlier for die Linke but I would be surprised if they poll less than 6% and get less than 3 constituency seats in East Berlin. I would be surprised if they got any constituency elsewhere though (like Leipzig/Dresden etc)
Assuming that FW and Sonstige(others) are not in the final shareout as they are below 5%, then 48 out of 90 will definitely be above 50%, therefore a majority.
I agree about the Linke 8% being an outlier (the other poll on the same day showed them still at 6). But as Gary and Davey say, the sPD is likely to have a choice - Greens plus FDP or Linke. I think Scholz would prefer the FDP, though that might lose some voters on the left. Probably we won't know at once as Scholz will trade off one against the other in negotiations.
On a lighter note, this is what the Greens in Germany want for a sleeper train network. It gets my vote!
Mine too. Some impossibly romantic journeys there. London to Venice. London to Barcelona. London to Naples. Wake up looking at Capri!
Edinburgh to Athens would be the ultimate but they've gotta get up and cross stations in London. Sorry about that
Yes, that's one reason why we need to build a direct link to HS2, so trains from Scotland/northern England can go direct to the continent. That said, I believe Paris suffers from the same issue (I could be wrong, I dare say the PB Train Experts will clarify).
You can certainly go from Calais to all points south without having to go via Paris - back in the day when the night trains had motorail attached, we used it to go all sort of places. And used Belgian, Dutch and German motorrail as well, all now sadly defunct, or almost so.
Sean will note that from the old Naples service (which AIR was DB from Düsseldorf) you never got a glimpse of Capri from the train, it being the other side of the town, and you woke up on the North Italian plains and then sat in the train until mid afternoon while it trundled its way down the peninsula.
The old sleeper services had the lowest priority on the network, would often be shunted unto sidings or left hanging about during the night while other trains went through, and the northern Italian ones deliberately went slow, otherwise you would arrive in the small hours.
Combining sleepers with high speed would indeed be an innovation, but when you think how far you could get on an HS train in six or seven hours, you only need it for the very longest (and hence least common) journeys like London to Seville and the like.
There would be a huge market for London to Vienna / Austrian Alps in the winter, just as there is a huge market for the French Alps Eurostar and the Caledonian Sleeper.
Pan-European services are a GREAT idea. The key is to make them luxurious and FUN.
The reshuffle actually feels like a little of a damp squib to me.
I want to see ideas from the government. Last night's news was a decent start; let's have some more.
Why is Raab still in the Cabinet? A useless Minister. Now dumped at Justice so that one of the most important functions of the state can be messed around with some more by yet another useless incompetent.
We have reached a stage where trials on serious matters are due to start next week with no prosecuting or defence barristers appointed.
Competence would be a start. A welcome one.
I hold no candle for Raab but isn't he a human rights lawyer ?
No.
He wrote a book criticising the Human Rights Act and arguing for it to be repealed or scaled back.
How does that mean he's not a human rights lawyer?
He is a lawyer and he's written on human rights, what more do you need?
Lawyers can be on both sides of the argument, not just one side. That's kind of how the law works isn't it?
He has never practised as a human rights lawyer. After qualifying at Linklaters he joined the Foreign Office legal department. All lawyers need to have an understanding of human rights law because it potentially impacts other areas of the law. But I stand by what I wrote: his legal experience, such as it is - and it is not much - was not in human rights law. He might have some understanding of international law and treaties and similar since that is primarily what FO lawyers, at least when I was a government lawyer, did.
If I were being catty - and I am in a pretty low mood at the moment - I might say that Raab does not appear to have shown much understanding of anything frankly.
I do think reality is now dawning on the French of what Brexit really means for the standing of the EU (and by association France).
The UK brought a lot to the EU table and instead of accomodating the world's 5th largest economy, permanent UN security council member and major military power, the EU beancounters decided that losing the UK was a better choice than accomodating us. Now when key global decisions are being made the EU has got no presence, it's not in the room.
I have no love of the continual fracturing of the western alliance, however, it looks set to ramp up. I expect this new agreement will pull Japan, South Korea and India in as associate members fairly soon. I doubt any EU nation will be invited. Ultimately the US will want a very, very tightly closed circle on tech sharing. No single EU country can be trusted to keep the circle closed.
I understand the agreement is to be signed in the US next week with Boris travelling there and India and Japan invited to the ceremony
I really do not think our remainer colleagues have even started to understand what a devastating and profound blow this is, not just to France, but the EU itself
And the BBC may finally wake up to this and cover it
Big_G can I just point out that the BBC did cover this last night, and they continue to have it as their lead story on the website.
Are you also upset at all the newspaper front pages who, like the BBC, chose to lead last night with the cabinet reshuffle?
PS "our remainer colleagues"... Didn't you vote Remain?
This was a live statement by the President of the US, and Prime Ministers of UK and Australia and notified to the media worldwide.
Sky covered it live and have been heavily featuring it but the BBC coverage has been poor
The front pages are very different as they were going to press during the announcement but broadcast media are able to be far more flexible and do 'breaking news' all the time
This announcement has understandably upset EU supporters and those on the left as it has profound implications
LOL 😆
In fact its Labour who for some time now have been warning the British people that it is the Tories who are too close to the Chinese
Any idea that that might be the case has been dispelled in one tripartite military treaty to be signed in the US next week
Ha ha 🤣
In terms of effectively combatting China, We have been completely ignorant of China’s play of soft power around the world, and not even in the game in fact - cutting our own aid budgets and even allowing them into our own economic sectors - comms, education, energy for examples. That’s what Labour have been warning about for years, that what’s the Torys have been doing for years. Tough on China? they sold us off to China! 😁 That makes this treaty a fig leaf.
Admit it BG, this is not just what the Tories have been doing, they are still doing it today! That’s the kicker. This treaty + China in our infrastructure, Property, Energy, Comms, Education Etc + we have cut our aid budget, not competing in soft power at all.
Plus this treaty is a long term plan, what are calling immediate results? It’s a very long way away from a nuclear Aussie sub (Matilda class?)
Plus many of our own allies we should be working with against Chinese human rights record and threatening neighbours are cheesed off and suspicious of betrayal, which is a further negative surely?
SPD and Grune and Linke still only gets to 48% though, SPD and Grune and FDP does get to 50%
I think this is an outlier for die Linke but I would be surprised if they poll less than 6% and get less than 3 constituency seats in East Berlin. I would be surprised if they got any constituency elsewhere though (like Leipzig/Dresden etc)
Assuming that FW and Sonstige(others) are not in the final shareout as they are below 5%, then 48 out of 90 will definitely be above 50%, therefore a majority.
I agree about the Linke 8% being an outlier (the other poll on the same day showed them still at 6). But as Gary and Davey say, the sPD is likely to have a choice - Greens plus FDP or Linke. I think Scholz would prefer the FDP, though that might lose some voters on the left. Probably we won't know at once as Scholz will trade off one against the other in negotiations.
On a lighter note, this is what the Greens in Germany want for a sleeper train network. It gets my vote!
Mine too. Some impossibly romantic journeys there. London to Venice. London to Barcelona. London to Naples. Wake up looking at Capri!
Edinburgh to Athens would be the ultimate but they've gotta get up and cross stations in London. Sorry about that
Yes, that's one reason why we need to build a direct link to HS2, so trains from Scotland/northern England can go direct to the continent. That said, I believe Paris suffers from the same issue (I could be wrong, I dare say the PB Train Experts will clarify).
You can certainly go from Calais to all points south without having to go via Paris - back in the day when the night trains had motorail attached, we used it to go all sort of places. And used Belgian, Dutch and German motorrail as well, all now sadly defunct, or almost so.
Sean will note that from the old Naples service (which AIR was DB from Düsseldorf) you never got a glimpse of Capri from the train, it being the other side of the town, and you woke up on the North Italian plains and then sat in the train until mid afternoon while it trundled its way down the peninsula.
The old sleeper services had the lowest priority on the network, would often be shunted unto sidings or left hanging about during the night while other trains went through, and the northern Italian ones deliberately went slow, otherwise you would arrive in the small hours.
Combining sleepers with high speed would indeed be an innovation, but when you think how far you could get on an HS train in six or seven hours, you only need it for the very longest (and hence least common) journeys like London to Seville and the like.
There would be a huge market for London to Vienna / Austrian Alps in the winter, just as there is a huge market for the French Alps Eurostar and the Caledonian Sleeper.
Pan-European services are a GREAT idea. The key is to make them luxurious and FUN.
We used to have such services and they were fun. The Wagon-Lits from Calais (later Paris) to Rome were a staple of my childhood. There was even the boat train from Victoria. It's how we travelled to Italy.
Then when the children were younger we regularly put the car on the train at Bruges and travel with the car overnight to Italy, with a lovely evening meal in the restaurant car. You could get off at Livorno and you were in Tuscany. Or go on to Rome. You could also do it via Germany.
The other option was to put the car on a train in Paris and go to Nice while taking a separate overnight couchette. But the last time I did that the service was abysmal.
If they reintroduce trains like this it would be great. Much more fun than having to drive through large parts of Europe. But I'll believe it when I see it. It will take significant investment and much better levels of service.
SPD and Grune and Linke still only gets to 48% though, SPD and Grune and FDP does get to 50%
I think this is an outlier for die Linke but I would be surprised if they poll less than 6% and get less than 3 constituency seats in East Berlin. I would be surprised if they got any constituency elsewhere though (like Leipzig/Dresden etc)
Assuming that FW and Sonstige(others) are not in the final shareout as they are below 5%, then 48 out of 90 will definitely be above 50%, therefore a majority.
I agree about the Linke 8% being an outlier (the other poll on the same day showed them still at 6). But as Gary and Davey say, the sPD is likely to have a choice - Greens plus FDP or Linke. I think Scholz would prefer the FDP, though that might lose some voters on the left. Probably we won't know at once as Scholz will trade off one against the other in negotiations.
On a lighter note, this is what the Greens in Germany want for a sleeper train network. It gets my vote!
Mine too. Some impossibly romantic journeys there. London to Venice. London to Barcelona. London to Naples. Wake up looking at Capri!
Edinburgh to Athens would be the ultimate but they've gotta get up and cross stations in London. Sorry about that
Yes, that's one reason why we need to build a direct link to HS2, so trains from Scotland/northern England can go direct to the continent. That said, I believe Paris suffers from the same issue (I could be wrong, I dare say the PB Train Experts will clarify).
From booking trains from Edinburgh to Avignon for my late dad, he had to change stations in both London and Paris. Might be different now, but I suspect the two countries both suffer from their capital=galactic centre symdrome and can't imagine that anyone might not automatically want to pay homage.
Certainly an issue in nations with Primate Cities. I mean, Londoners and Parisians do have a point. They are both fantastic cities. But we really do need to consider rail bypasses for both.
I'm not sure it is actually necessary to destroy Camden as Leon fears - my friend who lives there showed me once a spur running off the main line (into Euston) at the Regents Park Road bridge that headed off east and entered a tangle of tracks and viaducts in the former gas-metery wastelands north of the British Library, so there's something right there, though needing engineering at the St Pancras end. Maybe someone knows why this wasn't picked up on.
It was abadoned not on cost grounds (about £100m if I recall) but because it would need not only schengen passport controls at each city, but also siloed, security-checked carriages for continent-bound passengers.
The security (and technical) requirements for eurotunnel to let a train through are onerous. A continental firm is currently trying to persuade eurotunnel to relax them so the Amsterdam to Vienna sleeper could start at London, but not having any luck.
Husband back in hospital again. Tried to swallow a tiny amount of soft white bread soaked in milk and hot water and choked and vomited. Not good. How the hell can a half of walnut do this sort of damage?
And I can't sit with him either. Furness Hospital in special measures. Hope they have a decent ENT doc. Otherwise we'll be heading for Preston.
The Cyclefree family really doesn't need this right now.
When you’re a minister and a video emerges of you falling over because you were racing a knee walker up a corridor in front of TV cameras, the correct response is to admit you were an eejit and laugh it off. Not get huffy about the video and make yourself look po-faced to boot.
Comments
Its worth thinking about why the USA lost the Vietnam war in 1975 but the Free World won the Cold War and the Berlin Wall fell the following decade.
Asymmetric warfare with medieval savages who don't care if they live or die is a different kettle of fish to a conflict with another major power that does care if they live or die.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/16/mood-in-raabs-surrey-seat-buoys-lib-dems-on-eve-of-party-conference
Due to everybody going made over these NFTs have gone crazy and often its many $100s just for the "gas". Your kid did well to only pay $300, I know people who have paid $1000 just for the gas ...and due to the way the system works, there is no guarantee that will get you the item.
Basically if more people go for a contract then there are spaces, once its filled, all further transactions are rejected, BUT you don't get your gas fee back, as work had to be done to find this out.
So over the past few weeks, for hyped projects, people are firing $1000s and $1000s to try and secure just one item from a collection and quite often a load of their transactions get rejected.
Every time he has done something outrageous, he's waited for the world to respond, and the world has shrugged. The Uighurs, the state surveillance, the new "islands" in the South China Sea, the annexation of Hong Kong, The last is uncannily like Hitler in Austria or the Sudetenland. An outright land grab. And no one did anything
Finally the West is getting its act together. AUKUS is just the start. It is encouraging in that it shows America is NOT choosing isolationism. It is also a good thing in that it puts an electric pessary up the butts of freeloading or vacillating western allies like Canada, Spain, Italy, Germany. No more shirking.
Next week the agreement will be signed in the US and India and Japan are to attend, and South Korea are fully behind this
@Philip_Thompson said earlier that you have never lost your remain opinions and I was unsure until I have read a few of your posts and you do seem to have an element of it to be honest
When things calm down I have no doubt France and other allies, not least Canada, will be called on but they will not be in the tripartite inner circle
Nuclear powered subs were way beyond their purse.
Plus there is an ideological issue here. Free World vs Communist Dictatorship, just like the Cold War. The Communist Dictatorship is less communist than the USSR but every bit as Communist.
I am not entirely sure that will be the case for the PRC which is still on an upwards trajectory development-wise.
That's as close as you can get to war without shooting? So I'll go with Cold War until someone has a better description
COVID should be a huge wake up call for how over reliant the west has become on China for far too many crucial sectors. Crap plastic toys is one thing, but for instance not having access to base chemicals, many crucially important to medicines and fundamental chemical processes, that is very dangerous.
Even at the more trivial end, the likes of Amazon and Ebay just absolutely don't care if sellers are flogging products from "ghost" Hong Kong / Chinese companies.
They could quite feasibly end this century with as high a population as England ended the last one.
The Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy didn't want war with the Eastern Roman Empire, but it got one.
[One of Justinian's more dickish moves. He managed to destroy the kingdom but not really replace it, and reduced Italy to instability for a thousand years and more].
It may take fifty years to do similar with China, but we should be seeking to contain them and potentially do that if we can in the meantime.
Also, the FDP might choose to occupy the centre ground which the leftward move would have partly ceded, rather than move right to become a sub-CDU.
Edit: Also, your bit in brackets is currently questionable. Working in care is a pretty tough job, and there are lots of less stressful jobs around at the moment.
Like it or not the reality is that while we and the French can police Europe and much of Africa ourselves, in the Far East our role as policeman ended with the Hong Kong handover and the end of the British Empire, we now will provide only a supporting role at most. The bulk of the effort must come from the Far Eastern powers themselves, India and Australia supported by the USA
In the USSR people were starving to this end; in China last year Bentley sales were up 50% and were within a wheel arch of those to the US.
As for other jobs being available, there's a difference between someone who has the get up and go to go seek and get another job, and people who are settled in their job and are facing a deadline to get the jab or get sacked.
For the latter, going to get the jab is a lot easier (even if they don't want to) than facing the uncertainties of unemployment and the job hunting.
As I said earlier, in the home I know all the vaccine refuseniks got the jab last week in the face of the deadline.
The centrist politics whereby the FDP were kingmakers or the SPD and CDU/CSU formed grand coalitions to keep out the extremes would be over
https://twitter.com/telebusiness/status/1438499201952862214
More importantly, it is the biggest base imaginable in the south Indo-Pacific. If you want to contain China, you need a massive aircraft carrier the size of a country. Australia provides that, and multiple minor islands offshore (which may become significant)
And it is full of natural resources which China desperately needs to keep its economy going. You can't easily replace Australian iron, coal, wool, wheat, wine (and much else)
By the late 2000s pretty much everyone in the tourist industry spoke excellent English (except maybe the occasional waiter). I always get the feeling that my attempts to speak French are now appreciated but not necessary and any replies in French I receive are really to humour my attempt as their English is probably better than my French in practice.
Little Britain is not in top 5
He wrote a book criticising the Human Rights Act and arguing for it to be repealed or scaled back.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Assault-Liberty-Dominic-Raab/dp/0007293399/ref=sr_1_1?crid=FS7NX5SAC9CD&dchild=1&keywords=dominic+raab&qid=1631800950&qsid=260-1611071-7356160&s=books&sr=1-1&sres=0007293399,B004X6TO40,B0092GBHDM,1137032235,1349669431,1906996733,1849541582,0674244214,1529009944,0753554836,1529112923,B07W7CQ8C5,B085HQXF3P,B07KTJQRS4,B01J21MYLK,B094YT6BXC
Besides, as SeanT Leon knows all too well, Camden has been cut through many times; the Regent's Canal, the railway in the 1850s, roads and developments - and it still manages to thrive.
In reality, the scheme was canned because it was massively expensive for very little benefit. It as a nice-to-have, not a necessity. So it was the first thing axed on the scheme.
He is a lawyer and he's written on human rights, what more do you need?
Lawyers can be on both sides of the argument, not just one side. That's kind of how the law works isn't it?
Which 5 nations do you think are ahead of the UK both economically and militarily?
AFAICS there is a top two and then six of roughly equal importance behind that, of which the UK is one.
https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/
Militarily UK 9th
https://www.businessinsider.in/defense/ranked-the-worlds-20-strongest-militaries/slidelist/51930339.cms
The fact remains that adding drag uses more fuel for the same constant speed, and the pilots are flying to a set of constant speeds when landing, rather than continually slowing down.
Also, as mentioned, the gyroscopic effects of the rotating wheels on turns, and any system to spool up the wheels adds weight to the aircraft, which translates into fuel burn all the time. Use of electric motors to spool the wheels has been looked at, and dismissed on grounds of adding unnecessary weight and complexity., and the potential to distract pilots at a point of high workload.
Sean will note that from the old Naples service (which AIR was DB from Düsseldorf) you never got a glimpse of Capri from the train, it being the other side of the town, and you woke up on the North Italian plains and then sat in the train until mid afternoon while it trundled its way down the peninsula.
The old sleeper services had the lowest priority on the network, would often be shunted unto sidings or left hanging about during the night while other trains went through, and the northern Italian ones deliberately went slow, otherwise you would arrive in the small hours.
Combining sleepers with high speed would indeed be an innovation, but when you think how far you could get on an HS train in six or seven hours, you only need it for the very longest (and hence least common) journeys like London to Seville and the like.
The security (and technical) requirements for eurotunnel to let a train through are onerous. A continental firm is currently trying to persuade eurotunnel to relax them so the Amsterdam to Vienna sleeper could start at London, but not having any luck.
The UK is virtually tied for the top 5 economically and is top 5 militarily according to many rankings: https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/top-10-militaries-world-ranked/
Whereas Japan and Germany may be ahead economically but they lack any serious force projection that the UK has. Combine military and economy and the UK easily justifies its top 5 spot.
https://twitter.com/g_lanktree/status/1438506259842359296?s=20
Povidone iodine, often sold under the brand-name Betadine, is an iodine-based treatment largely for topical use that kills bacteria. It’s a “commonly used cleanser in the ER and OR,” says Kenneth Weinberg, an emergency room physician in New York City. “If you’re in the ER and someone has a wound to sew it up, you use it to clean with.” When told that anti-vaxxers had taken to gargling with Betadine, Weinberg said, “Fuck me! Of course they are.”
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/betadine-anti-vaxxer-covid-treatment-iodine-1225438/
COVID-19: Northern Ireland asks for up to 100 armed forces medics to help deal with coronavirus patients
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1438507422394445834?s=20
You have to go back to a 2018 military ranking before we dropped to 9th
6th and 9th is not top 5
Instead of we are top 5 lets compromise on we WERE top 5 once
O'Connor, the depositary of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), New Zealand Minister of Trade and Export Growth. The ministers of the two countries also held a teleconference to communicate on the follow-up work related to China's formal application for membership.
Pan-European services are a GREAT idea. The key is to make them luxurious and FUN.
If I were being catty - and I am in a pretty low mood at the moment - I might say that Raab does not appear to have shown much understanding of anything frankly.
In terms of effectively combatting China, We have been completely ignorant of China’s play of soft power around the world, and not even in the game in fact - cutting our own aid budgets and even allowing them into our own economic sectors - comms, education, energy for examples. That’s what Labour have been warning about for years, that what’s the Torys have been doing for years. Tough on China? they sold us off to China! 😁 That makes this treaty a fig leaf.
Admit it BG, this is not just what the Tories have been doing, they are still doing it today! That’s the kicker. This treaty + China in our infrastructure, Property, Energy, Comms, Education Etc + we have cut our aid budget, not competing in soft power at all.
Plus this treaty is a long term plan, what are calling immediate results? It’s a very long way away from a nuclear Aussie sub (Matilda class?)
Plus many of our own allies we should be working with against Chinese human rights record and threatening neighbours are cheesed off and suspicious of betrayal, which is a further negative surely?
Then when the children were younger we regularly put the car on the train at Bruges and travel with the car overnight to Italy, with a lovely evening meal in the restaurant car. You could get off at Livorno and you were in Tuscany. Or go on to Rome. You could also do it via Germany.
The other option was to put the car on a train in Paris and go to Nice while taking a separate overnight couchette. But the last time I did that the service was abysmal.
If they reintroduce trains like this it would be great. Much more fun than having to drive through large parts of Europe. But I'll believe it when I see it. It will take significant investment and much better levels of service.
It's so frustrating that it has me idly wondering about recusancy fees, or only providing palliative Covid care, for vaccine refuseniks.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480372/HS2-HS1_report.pdf