With 7 weeks to go before Scotland votes the latest three polls find voters opposed to another IndyR

Northern_Al said:

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

BluestBlue said:

TimT said:

FPT TimT Posts: 2,683
1:40PM
Northern_Al said:
» show previous quotes
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:

"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
"The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
"Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."

I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.

PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
I'll translate:

"The family does not understand what Meghan and Harry have to complain about.
"The racism card is over-played and the comment made was not as reported.
"We have already looked into this to the extent we intend to and will say nothing further.
"Meghan and Harry are acting like little shits"

Yes, @Northern_Al seems to require open vituperation of the sort so masterfully demonstrated in the 16th-century correspondence between Tsar Ivan IV and his self-exiled courtier Prince Kurbsky. But there's no need for that kind of unsubtle display here: we're British.

On the contrary. His analysis is not skewed by the desperate need to see a "Fuck You Meghan" and is for this reason vastly superior to yours and your dim and tawdry crew.

Well, there is text, there is context, and there is subtext. If the two premier lefties on the site are getting this upset about some fairly obvious implications, I rather suspect our dim crew may be on to something after all...

You're behaving like one of those ultra-woke lefties who doesn't take stuff at face value but looks for a 'subtext' where the real meaning of the author can be seen, even if it was said/written in all innocence. So in this context 'saddened' becomes 'couldn't care less', 'concerned' becomes 'couldn't give a fuck', and 'much-loved family members' becomes 'we hate your guts'. It's really weird. Before you know it, you'll be deconstructing the sayings of B. Johnson to reveal the hidden offensiveness behind his liberal platitudes.

Oh and by the way, in reference to an earlier post of yours, I don't take you personally at all. Really not bothered - I enjoy the cut and thrust. I merely replied to a response that you'd made to me, er, personally.

@Northern_Al

I've posted relatively little on this topic because despite being an ideological monarchist I take very little interest in the royal family as people, so I won't drag this out too much.

Of course the statement has been carefuly formulated to admit a polite interpretation and so close the issue down in the public sphere. Nonetheless, it adopts neither a neutral nor a submissive posture. 'The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent' necessitates that the family was not fully informed by the couple about their grievances at the time (for whatever reason). 'Some recollections may vary' means that not all family members agree that it happened at all. 'Addressed by the family privately' implies that internal discussion, as opposed to an interview with a global audience, was the better course to pursue.

That much clearly follows from even a superficial reading of the text. Then add in the formal elements: the extreme laconicism and the written medium form an object contrast to spilling your guts to a billion people live on Oprah. Even the paratext 'ENDS' - the inclusion of which I suspect was not in fact an error - underscores both the message's finality and its almost telegrammatic brevity.

I don't feel that I'm particularly reaching with the above observations - I'll spare you the significance of the missing Oxford comma after 'Meghan' in the last line - they're there for any pract. crit. tyro to detect.

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Don't worry Comical Dave is on the story.

https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1369351351063506952

Because the EU was months later than the UK at ordering. They only have themselves to blame.

I still cannot comprehend that the EU prioritised price over speed when it came to the vaccine.

They thought being able to negotiate a discount would show the value of the EU. They didn't place an order with Pfizer until November 2020 and were boasting about paying less than the Americans.

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-eu-pfizer-idUSKBN27R1IF

The European Union has struck a deal to initially pay less for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate than the United States, an EU official told Reuters as the bloc announced on Wednesday

There's a lot of talk at the moment in Government about "replicating" the success of the vaccine taskforce.

I said you can certainly cut out all the bureaucratic layers of governance and get all the key players in one room, and give them the authority to get on with it, but you have to accept that money was no object and they took all the liability risk.

Funnily enough you can get quite a lot done quite quickly when money is no object and take on board all the risk, but the real world in normal times for big projects isn't like that.

The UK did.... 1.5m tests yesterday. Kids going back to school I guess (inc my older daughter)

That might be a record for any non micro-country throughout this hideous pandemic. We tested more than 2% of the entire population in a day.

At some point we reach overkill

On the other hand it does pleasingly remind me of the UK war industry in WW2. We started off sluggish and clueless. By the end we were churning out bombers and tanks by the ton, outclassing any enemy

MarqueeMark said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1369357346166673414?s=19

The reality of the EU failure on vaccines.

This.

For many weeks still to come.

Yebbut who pays the price for the failure? Apart from European citizens, the poor saps. Certainly not the fonctionnaires in Bruxelles Berlayment.

HYUFD said:

There has clearly been a shift to No since the vaccination programme proved so successful, No Deal Brexit was avoided and Salmond tore Sturgeon apart.

Indeed on the latest poll the SNP has also fallen below 50% and is at risk of no Holyrood majority at all which would destroy any hopes it had of pushing for indyref2 completely

https://twitter.com/SundayTimesScot/status/1368460645964935170?s=20

Scottish Greens
independents
New pro-indy parties

all count in the arithmetic.

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

Amateur hour again.
https://twitter.com/Barnes_Joe/status/1369375392298074114
https://twitter.com/laurnorman/status/1369378075465629706

They've turned into the UK government in about 2017-18, continuously humiliating itself over Brexit. Except this is waaaaay more important

The EU isn't 100% sure that Brexit is going to be an abject disaster.

When you think of it like that its irrational behaviour makes sense.

BluestBlue said:

Northern_Al said:

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

BluestBlue said:

TimT said:

FPT TimT Posts: 2,683
1:40PM
Northern_Al said:
» show previous quotes
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:

"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
"The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
"Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."

I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.

PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
I'll translate:

"The family does not understand what Meghan and Harry have to complain about.
"The racism card is over-played and the comment made was not as reported.
"We have already looked into this to the extent we intend to and will say nothing further.
"Meghan and Harry are acting like little shits"

Yes, @Northern_Al seems to require open vituperation of the sort so masterfully demonstrated in the 16th-century correspondence between Tsar Ivan IV and his self-exiled courtier Prince Kurbsky. But there's no need for that kind of unsubtle display here: we're British.

On the contrary. His analysis is not skewed by the desperate need to see a "Fuck You Meghan" and is for this reason vastly superior to yours and your dim and tawdry crew.

Well, there is text, there is context, and there is subtext. If the two premier lefties on the site are getting this upset about some fairly obvious implications, I rather suspect our dim crew may be on to something after all...

You're behaving like one of those ultra-woke lefties who doesn't take stuff at face value but looks for a 'subtext' where the real meaning of the author can be seen, even if it was said/written in all innocence. So in this context 'saddened' becomes 'couldn't care less', 'concerned' becomes 'couldn't give a fuck', and 'much-loved family members' becomes 'we hate your guts'. It's really weird. Before you know it, you'll be deconstructing the sayings of B. Johnson to reveal the hidden offensiveness behind his liberal platitudes.

Oh and by the way, in reference to an earlier post of yours, I don't take you personally at all. Really not bothered - I enjoy the cut and thrust. I merely replied to a response that you'd made to me, er, personally.

@Northern_Al

I've posted relatively little on this topic because despite being an ideological monarchist I take very little interest in the royal family as people, so I won't drag this out too much.

Of course the statement has been carefuly formulated to admit a polite interpretation and so close the issue down in the public sphere. Nonetheless, it adopts neither a neutral nor a submissive posture. 'The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent' necessitates that the family was not fully informed by the couple about their grievances at the time (for whatever reason). 'Some recollections may vary' means that not all family members agree that it happened at all. 'Addressed by the family privately' implies that internal discussion, as opposed to an interview with a global audience, was the better course to pursue.

That much clearly follows from even a superficial reading of the text. Then add in the formal elements: the extreme laconicism and the written medium form an object contrast to spilling your guts to a billion people live on Oprah. Even the paratext 'ENDS' - the inclusion of which I suspect was not in fact an error - underscores both the message's finality and its almost telegrammatic brevity.

I don't feel that I'm particularly reaching with the above observations - I'll spare you the significance of the missing Oxford comma after 'Meghan' in the last line - they're there for any pract. crit. tyro to detect.

This could have all been achieved without mentioning "issues" that were "concerning", or that Harry and Megan were "much-loved members of the family", which was not the language of any palace statement before Diana. If that had been done, both the Guardian and the Mail wouldn't have been able to run their conflicting, relatively satisfied headlines. That was the point of it.

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

There has clearly been a shift to No since the vaccination programme proved so successful, No Deal Brexit was avoided and Salmond tore Sturgeon apart.

Indeed on the latest poll the SNP has also fallen below 50% and is at risk of no Holyrood majority at all which would destroy any hopes it had of pushing for indyref2 completely

https://twitter.com/SundayTimesScot/status/1368460645964935170?s=20

Scottish Greens
independents
New pro-indy parties

all count in the arithmetic.

No they don't, there is already an SNP and Green majority now at Holyrood, no SNP majority despite Brexit means no material change in circumstances since the 'once in a generation' 2014 referendum and the UK government will easily refuse a legal indyref2.

Gallowgate said:

Just had 3 Apache Gunships fly overhead.

BBC just upped their licence fee evasion task force.....

WhisperingOracle said:

BluestBlue said:

Northern_Al said:

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

BluestBlue said:

TimT said:

FPT TimT Posts: 2,683
1:40PM
Northern_Al said:
» show previous quotes
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:

"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
"The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
"Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."

I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.

PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
I'll translate:

"The family does not understand what Meghan and Harry have to complain about.
"The racism card is over-played and the comment made was not as reported.
"We have already looked into this to the extent we intend to and will say nothing further.
"Meghan and Harry are acting like little shits"

Yes, @Northern_Al seems to require open vituperation of the sort so masterfully demonstrated in the 16th-century correspondence between Tsar Ivan IV and his self-exiled courtier Prince Kurbsky. But there's no need for that kind of unsubtle display here: we're British.

On the contrary. His analysis is not skewed by the desperate need to see a "Fuck You Meghan" and is for this reason vastly superior to yours and your dim and tawdry crew.

Well, there is text, there is context, and there is subtext. If the two premier lefties on the site are getting this upset about some fairly obvious implications, I rather suspect our dim crew may be on to something after all...

You're behaving like one of those ultra-woke lefties who doesn't take stuff at face value but looks for a 'subtext' where the real meaning of the author can be seen, even if it was said/written in all innocence. So in this context 'saddened' becomes 'couldn't care less', 'concerned' becomes 'couldn't give a fuck', and 'much-loved family members' becomes 'we hate your guts'. It's really weird. Before you know it, you'll be deconstructing the sayings of B. Johnson to reveal the hidden offensiveness behind his liberal platitudes.

Oh and by the way, in reference to an earlier post of yours, I don't take you personally at all. Really not bothered - I enjoy the cut and thrust. I merely replied to a response that you'd made to me, er, personally.

@Northern_Al

I've posted relatively little on this topic because despite being an ideological monarchist I take very little interest in the royal family as people, so I won't drag this out too much.

Of course the statement has been carefuly formulated to admit a polite interpretation and so close the issue down in the public sphere. Nonetheless, it adopts neither a neutral nor a submissive posture. 'The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent' necessitates that the family was not fully informed by the couple about their grievances at the time (for whatever reason). 'Some recollections may vary' means that not all family members agree that it happened at all. 'Addressed by the family privately' implies that internal discussion, as opposed to an interview with a global audience, was the better course to pursue.

That much clearly follows from even a superficial reading of the text. Then add in the formal elements: the extreme laconicism and the written medium form an object contrast to spilling your guts to a billion people live on Oprah. Even the paratext 'ENDS' - the inclusion of which I suspect was not in fact an error - underscores both the message's finality and its almost telegrammatic brevity.

I don't feel that I'm particularly reaching with the above observations - I'll spare you the significance of the missing Oxford comma after 'Meghan' in the last line - they're there for any pract. crit. tyro to detect.

This could have all been achieved without mentioning "issues" that were "concerning", or that Harry and Megan were "much-loved members of the family", which was not the language of any palace statement before Diana. If that had been done, both the Guardian and the Mail wouldn't have been able to run their conflicting, relatively satisfied headlines. That was the point of it.

But the genius is that they were able to run their conflicting headlines - all things to all men*.

*Women too obvs.

Beibheirli_C said:

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

Amateur hour again.
https://twitter.com/Barnes_Joe/status/1369375392298074114
https://twitter.com/laurnorman/status/1369378075465629706

OK Remainers, you have permission to cringe.

Yes, you put all that faith in these EU people. You really did.

To be fair to you, the alternative was Nigel Farage. But still - bloody embarrassing isn't it?

This is a new EU Commission. We Remainers had put our faith in a totally different set of clowns, now all gone.

Although how you have the nerve to talk about amateur hour with Boris in charge... a former journalist who has been fired for making his quotes up and who then hides in fridges from other journalists.

Under Johnson's govt we are in the top ten of deaths per 100,000.

. You could be dying and catch covid which finishes you off. Still a covid death . Not sure the that is realistic....

geoffw said:

WhisperingOracle said:

BluestBlue said:

Northern_Al said:

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

BluestBlue said:

TimT said:

FPT TimT Posts: 2,683
1:40PM
Northern_Al said:
» show previous quotes
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:

"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
"The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
"Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."

I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.

PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
I'll translate:

"The family does not understand what Meghan and Harry have to complain about.
"The racism card is over-played and the comment made was not as reported.
"We have already looked into this to the extent we intend to and will say nothing further.
"Meghan and Harry are acting like little shits"

Yes, @Northern_Al seems to require open vituperation of the sort so masterfully demonstrated in the 16th-century correspondence between Tsar Ivan IV and his self-exiled courtier Prince Kurbsky. But there's no need for that kind of unsubtle display here: we're British.

On the contrary. His analysis is not skewed by the desperate need to see a "Fuck You Meghan" and is for this reason vastly superior to yours and your dim and tawdry crew.

Well, there is text, there is context, and there is subtext. If the two premier lefties on the site are getting this upset about some fairly obvious implications, I rather suspect our dim crew may be on to something after all...

You're behaving like one of those ultra-woke lefties who doesn't take stuff at face value but looks for a 'subtext' where the real meaning of the author can be seen, even if it was said/written in all innocence. So in this context 'saddened' becomes 'couldn't care less', 'concerned' becomes 'couldn't give a fuck', and 'much-loved family members' becomes 'we hate your guts'. It's really weird. Before you know it, you'll be deconstructing the sayings of B. Johnson to reveal the hidden offensiveness behind his liberal platitudes.

Oh and by the way, in reference to an earlier post of yours, I don't take you personally at all. Really not bothered - I enjoy the cut and thrust. I merely replied to a response that you'd made to me, er, personally.

@Northern_Al

I've posted relatively little on this topic because despite being an ideological monarchist I take very little interest in the royal family as people, so I won't drag this out too much.

Of course the statement has been carefuly formulated to admit a polite interpretation and so close the issue down in the public sphere. Nonetheless, it adopts neither a neutral nor a submissive posture. 'The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent' necessitates that the family was not fully informed by the couple about their grievances at the time (for whatever reason). 'Some recollections may vary' means that not all family members agree that it happened at all. 'Addressed by the family privately' implies that internal discussion, as opposed to an interview with a global audience, was the better course to pursue.

That much clearly follows from even a superficial reading of the text. Then add in the formal elements: the extreme laconicism and the written medium form an object contrast to spilling your guts to a billion people live on Oprah. Even the paratext 'ENDS' - the inclusion of which I suspect was not in fact an error - underscores both the message's finality and its almost telegrammatic brevity.

I don't feel that I'm particularly reaching with the above observations - I'll spare you the significance of the missing Oxford comma after 'Meghan' in the last line - they're there for any pract. crit. tyro to detect.

This could have all been achieved without mentioning "issues" that were "concerning", or that Harry and Megan were "much-loved members of the family", which was not the language of any palace statement before Diana. If that had been done, both the Guardian and the Mail wouldn't have been able to run their conflicting, relatively satisfied headlines. That was the point of it.

But the genius is that they were able to run their conflicting headlines - all things to all men*.

*Women too obvs.

Yes, and as I've been saying since the statement came out.

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

The UK did.... 1.5m tests yesterday. Kids going back to school I guess (inc my older daughter)

That might be a record for any non micro-country throughout this hideous pandemic. We tested more than 2% of the entire population in a day.

At some point we reach overkill

On the other hand it does pleasingly remind me of the UK war industry in WW2. We started off sluggish and clueless. By the end we were churning out bombers and tanks by the ton, outclassing any enemy

'Outclassing'. Not in tanks, the UK weren't, apart from half a dozen Centurion barely in time to see any action, and thay as a special rush operation.

Fair enough. Planes. Which were the thing that mattered. As Bomber Harris knew

Sir max hastings wouldn’t agree. I picked up a hardback of his ‘Bomber Command’ cheap in Smiths a couple of weeks back. Full of praise, rightly so, for the courage of the air crew, and full of anger at the misguided approach of the senior air staff, and sadly, Harris himself. Harris tried to prove that bombing alone could defeat Germany, but only really proved able to inflict sufficient damage by late ‘44 and into ‘45, when the ground forces of all the nations, notably the Russians, had won the war. Hastings is quite convincing that the strategic bombing was the wrong approach, at least after ‘41 and ‘42 when the air campaign was crucial for morale, and to placate Stalin. The efforts of British industry to create the vast heavy bomber fleet could have been better used elsewhere.
It’s a good book, and great value at the £6 I paid.

FrancisUrquhart said:

MarqueeMark said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1369357346166673414?s=19

The reality of the EU failure on vaccines.

This.

For many weeks still to come.

French GP doing 30 a week, on a good week....compare to the scenes here.

https://youtu.be/_kfC6EbWxRc

That ICU nurse - basically 'the President said AZ was crap, a month later the Government turned round and said it wasn't, now my trust is undermined - I'm not against vaccines BUT I want to pick which one I get'

Macron's chickens coming home to roost.

MarqueeMark said:

Gallowgate said:

Just had 3 Apache Gunships fly overhead.

BBC just upped their licence fee evasion task force.....

I was wondering if Gallowgate was in California ....

So... I've stuck Harry and Meghan into GPT-3 tool asking it to come up with a Facebook ad.

Chortle.

Casino_Royale said:

My inputs weren't very sophisticated but FWIW: "British royal Prince. American actress. Whirlwind romance. Fairytale wedding. High hopes. All went wrong. Accusations of racism. Tabloid press pulled no punches. Family feuds. Great bitterness. No-one is talking, except to the media. Sad."

I love the Trumpian "Sad." at the end.

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

I just read that H&M's interview was "devastating" for the reputation of the British Monarchy.

I'm guessing the journalist didn't actually watch the interview, then.

It's been fascinating to see how many Americans are invested in an anti-British monarchy position as part of their political identity.

But, not that surprising either?

It's how their nation was founded.

I've been reading Peter Hitchens' book about the Second World War, The Phoney Victory. He's very critical of most of the decisions taken by Churchill during the war.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Phoney-Victory-World-War-Illusion/dp/1788313291

Beibheirli_C said:

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

Amateur hour again.
https://twitter.com/Barnes_Joe/status/1369375392298074114
https://twitter.com/laurnorman/status/1369378075465629706

OK Remainers, you have permission to cringe.

Yes, you put all that faith in these EU people. You really did.

To be fair to you, the alternative was Nigel Farage. But still - bloody embarrassing isn't it?

This is a new EU Commission. We Remainers had put our faith in a totally different set of clowns, now all gone.

Although how you have the nerve to talk about amateur hour with Boris in charge... a former journalist who has been fired for making his quotes up and who then hides in fridges from other journalists.

Under Johnson's govt we are in the top ten of deaths per 100,000.

WRONG.

We almost certainly won't even be even in the top 20 when all is said and done.

PoodleInASlipstream said:

Leon said:

Fair enough. Planes. Which were the thing that mattered. As Bomber Harris knew

Quite. Having worse thanks than the enemy is not fatal if you have enough of them, as the Soviets proved. But poor aircraft are next to useless. And Britain shelled out superb planes like they were peas.

Spitfires (and Seafires) second only to the Messerchmitt 109 in terms of numbers of WW2-era single-engined fighters produced:

22,997 v. 33,984

Hurricanes also in top 6.

Theuniondivvie said:

PoodleInASlipstream said:

Leon said:

Fair enough. Planes. Which were the thing that mattered. As Bomber Harris knew

Quite. Having worse thanks than the enemy is not fatal if you have enough of them, as the Soviets proved. But poor aircraft are next to useless. And Britain shelled out superb planes like they were peas.

The Soviets didn’t have worse ‘thanks’ than the enemy, the Western allies otoh did.

Everyone had worse tanks than the Germans in WW2. The Tiger, and the Panther, were - one on one - superior to any tank produced by an allied nation in WW2

The problem was the German tanks were too sophisticated and tricky to manufacture, and prone to breakdowns, like hi-tech racing cars. The Soviet T34 was no supertank, but it was easy to make in huge numbers, and that's how the USSR overwhelmed the Nazis. With numbers

Same story with the Kalashnikov, of course.

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

The UK did.... 1.5m tests yesterday. Kids going back to school I guess (inc my older daughter)

That might be a record for any non micro-country throughout this hideous pandemic. We tested more than 2% of the entire population in a day.

At some point we reach overkill

On the other hand it does pleasingly remind me of the UK war industry in WW2. We started off sluggish and clueless. By the end we were churning out bombers and tanks by the ton, outclassing any enemy

'Outclassing'. Not in tanks, the UK weren't, apart from half a dozen Centurion barely in time to see any action, and thay as a special rush operation.

Fair enough. Planes. Which were the thing that mattered. As Bomber Harris knew

Sir max hastings wouldn’t agree. I picked up a hardback of his ‘Bomber Command’ cheap in Smiths a couple of weeks back. Full of praise, rightly so, for the courage of the air crew, and full of anger at the misguided approach of the senior air staff, and sadly, Harris himself. Harris tried to prove that bombing alone could defeat Germany, but only really proved able to inflict sufficient damage by late ‘44 and into ‘45, when the ground forces of all the nations, notably the Russians, had won the war. Hastings is quite convincing that the strategic bombing was the wrong approach, at least after ‘41 and ‘42 when the air campaign was crucial for morale, and to placate Stalin. The efforts of British industry to create the vast heavy bomber fleet could have been better used elsewhere.
It’s a good book, and great value at the £6 I paid.

I fundamentally disagree. And I have read widely on this subject (inc Hastings)

By the end, the UK and US were flattening German cities day and night. Total annihilation. It might have been cruel and unjustified, I certainly see that argument - but was it effective? Absolutely.

Total bombing works. The conventional but total bombing of Tokyo was part of the reason the Japanese surrendered, it wasn't just Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"The Bombing of Tokyo (東京大空襲, Tōkyōdaikūshū) was a series of firebombing air raids by the United States Army Air Forces during the Pacific campaigns of World War II. Operation Meetinghouse, which was conducted on the night of 9–10 March 1945, is the single most destructive bombing raid in human history.[1] Of central Tokyo 16 square miles (41 km2; 10,000 acres) were destroyed, leaving an estimated 100,000 civilians dead and over one million homeless.[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

No society can withstand such total destruction. Germany and Japan were being reduced to Neolithic living conditions by the outright air supremacy of the enemy. We *could* have won by bombing alone, I reckon - but at what moral cost? Bombing certainly aided our cause

I accept this is a debate which has lasted many decades and is unlikely to be settled tonight on PB

All good points, and I respect that you disagree. No question enormous destruction was being wrought by the end. The counter factual of a realistic attack on synthetic oil is of interest, but of course Harris abhorred the ‘panacea’ approach. I’d argue that the bomber campaigns were not fought in isolation from the epic eastern front conflict. Could the bombing campaign have been sustained if Germany had been solely concerned with air defence? The loses for both bomber command and 8th Air Force were colossal until almost the end. I cannot imagine the bravery of those airmen embarking on a tour with less than even chance of survival.
You are wise to say that we will not settle this, tonight, on pb, but it’s a fascinating subject.

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

There has clearly been a shift to No since the vaccination programme proved so successful, No Deal Brexit was avoided and Salmond tore Sturgeon apart.

Indeed on the latest poll the SNP has also fallen below 50% and is at risk of no Holyrood majority at all which would destroy any hopes it had of pushing for indyref2 completely

https://twitter.com/SundayTimesScot/status/1368460645964935170?s=20

Scottish Greens
independents
New pro-indy parties

all count in the arithmetic.

No they don't, there is already an SNP and Green majority now at Holyrood, no SNP majority despite Brexit means no material change in circumstances since the 'once in a generation' 2014 referendum and the UK government will easily refuse a legal indyref2.

You move goalposts like Pickfords Removals. That is arrant nonsense alien to the British Constitution, Henrician, Carolingian or Glorious, or the Treaties of Union.

The Scotland Áct 1998 affirms the final say on the future of the Union is reserved to Westminster and Westminster has been the supreme legislative body across the UK since 1707

https://twitter.com/AntonSpisak/status/1369393113517727745

Andy_JS said:

I've been reading Peter Hitchens' book about the Second World War, The Phoney Victory. He's very critical of most of the decisions taken by Churchill during the war.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Phoney-Victory-World-War-Illusion/dp/1788313291

His alternatives don't happen to involve doing nothing and hoping it would all go away, do they?

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/itihaasnaama/status/1369331165778296834

Strikingly bitter, glad only one side is wallowing in history there.

https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1369398895617409033

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

The UK did.... 1.5m tests yesterday. Kids going back to school I guess (inc my older daughter)

That might be a record for any non micro-country throughout this hideous pandemic. We tested more than 2% of the entire population in a day.

At some point we reach overkill

On the other hand it does pleasingly remind me of the UK war industry in WW2. We started off sluggish and clueless. By the end we were churning out bombers and tanks by the ton, outclassing any enemy

'Outclassing'. Not in tanks, the UK weren't, apart from half a dozen Centurion barely in time to see any action, and thay as a special rush operation.

Fair enough. Planes. Which were the thing that mattered. As Bomber Harris knew

Sir max hastings wouldn’t agree. I picked up a hardback of his ‘Bomber Command’ cheap in Smiths a couple of weeks back. Full of praise, rightly so, for the courage of the air crew, and full of anger at the misguided approach of the senior air staff, and sadly, Harris himself. Harris tried to prove that bombing alone could defeat Germany, but only really proved able to inflict sufficient damage by late ‘44 and into ‘45, when the ground forces of all the nations, notably the Russians, had won the war. Hastings is quite convincing that the strategic bombing was the wrong approach, at least after ‘41 and ‘42 when the air campaign was crucial for morale, and to placate Stalin. The efforts of British industry to create the vast heavy bomber fleet could have been better used elsewhere.
It’s a good book, and great value at the £6 I paid.

I fundamentally disagree. And I have read widely on this subject (inc Hastings)

By the end, the UK and US were flattening German cities day and night. Total annihilation. It might have been cruel and unjustified, I certainly see that argument - but was it effective? Absolutely.

Total bombing works. The conventional but total bombing of Tokyo was part of the reason the Japanese surrendered, it wasn't just Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"The Bombing of Tokyo (東京大空襲, Tōkyōdaikūshū) was a series of firebombing air raids by the United States Army Air Forces during the Pacific campaigns of World War II. Operation Meetinghouse, which was conducted on the night of 9–10 March 1945, is the single most destructive bombing raid in human history.[1] Of central Tokyo 16 square miles (41 km2; 10,000 acres) were destroyed, leaving an estimated 100,000 civilians dead and over one million homeless.[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

No society can withstand such total destruction. Germany and Japan were being reduced to Neolithic living conditions by the outright air supremacy of the enemy. We *could* have won by bombing alone, I reckon - but at what moral cost? Bombing certainly aided our cause

I accept this is a debate which has lasted many decades and is unlikely to be settled tonight on PB

All good points, and I respect that you disagree. No question enormous destruction was being wrought by the end. The counter factual of a realistic attack on synthetic oil is of interest, but of course Harris abhorred the ‘panacea’ approach. I’d argue that the bomber campaigns were not fought in isolation from the epic eastern front conflict. Could the bombing campaign have been sustained if Germany had been solely concerned with air defence? The loses for both bomber command and 8th Air Force were colossal until almost the end. I cannot imagine the bravery of those airmen embarking on a tour with less than even chance of survival.
You are wise to say that we will not settle this, tonight, on pb, but it’s a fascinating subject.

It is fascinating. The counter argument is the Vietnam war, where America dropped more bombs than in all of WW2 (and that's just in Laos, I think) yet still lost.

But this is because SE Asia was a deeply poor, rural society, with few big cities to hammer, and a reduction to peasant life was far easier to endure, as most of it was down there already. Reducing Germans and Japanese in 1945 to living in fields was a very different matter

And it could have happened

When people speculate on what America might have done with Japan, absent nukes, and regarding the potential costs of the invasion (so many American troops dead and so on) I wonder if America would even have invaded. With total air supremacy, the Yanks could have conventionally reduced every single Japanese city to rubble, a la Tokyo, and done it again and again, even without invading. An endless obliteration. Just a few American lives lost. Millions of Japanese dead

Japan would surely have surrendered anyway, within weeks

Andy_JS said:

I've been reading Peter Hitchens' book about the Second World War, The Phoney Victory. He's very critical of most of the decisions taken by Churchill during the war.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Phoney-Victory-World-War-Illusion/dp/1788313291

Exposes myths and narratives of the war sounds like it might be interesting, though as titles go it seems misleading in an over attempt at being provocative.

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

The UK did.... 1.5m tests yesterday. Kids going back to school I guess (inc my older daughter)

That might be a record for any non micro-country throughout this hideous pandemic. We tested more than 2% of the entire population in a day.

At some point we reach overkill

On the other hand it does pleasingly remind me of the UK war industry in WW2. We started off sluggish and clueless. By the end we were churning out bombers and tanks by the ton, outclassing any enemy

'Outclassing'. Not in tanks, the UK weren't, apart from half a dozen Centurion barely in time to see any action, and thay as a special rush operation.

Fair enough. Planes. Which were the thing that mattered. As Bomber Harris knew

Sir max hastings wouldn’t agree. I picked up a hardback of his ‘Bomber Command’ cheap in Smiths a couple of weeks back. Full of praise, rightly so, for the courage of the air crew, and full of anger at the misguided approach of the senior air staff, and sadly, Harris himself. Harris tried to prove that bombing alone could defeat Germany, but only really proved able to inflict sufficient damage by late ‘44 and into ‘45, when the ground forces of all the nations, notably the Russians, had won the war. Hastings is quite convincing that the strategic bombing was the wrong approach, at least after ‘41 and ‘42 when the air campaign was crucial for morale, and to placate Stalin. The efforts of British industry to create the vast heavy bomber fleet could have been better used elsewhere.
It’s a good book, and great value at the £6 I paid.

I fundamentally disagree. And I have read widely on this subject (inc Hastings)

By the end, the UK and US were flattening German cities day and night. Total annihilation. It might have been cruel and unjustified, I certainly see that argument - but was it effective? Absolutely.

Total bombing works. The conventional but total bombing of Tokyo was part of the reason the Japanese surrendered, it wasn't just Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"The Bombing of Tokyo (東京大空襲, Tōkyōdaikūshū) was a series of firebombing air raids by the United States Army Air Forces during the Pacific campaigns of World War II. Operation Meetinghouse, which was conducted on the night of 9–10 March 1945, is the single most destructive bombing raid in human history.[1] Of central Tokyo 16 square miles (41 km2; 10,000 acres) were destroyed, leaving an estimated 100,000 civilians dead and over one million homeless.[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

No society can withstand such total destruction. Germany and Japan were being reduced to Neolithic living conditions by the outright air supremacy of the enemy. We *could* have won by bombing alone, I reckon - but at what moral cost? Bombing certainly aided our cause

I accept this is a debate which has lasted many decades and is unlikely to be settled tonight on PB

All good points, and I respect that you disagree. No question enormous destruction was being wrought by the end. The counter factual of a realistic attack on synthetic oil is of interest, but of course Harris abhorred the ‘panacea’ approach. I’d argue that the bomber campaigns were not fought in isolation from the epic eastern front conflict. Could the bombing campaign have been sustained if Germany had been solely concerned with air defence? The loses for both bomber command and 8th Air Force were colossal until almost the end. I cannot imagine the bravery of those airmen embarking on a tour with less than even chance of survival.
You are wise to say that we will not settle this, tonight, on pb, but it’s a fascinating subject.

It is fascinating. The counter argument is the Vietnam war, where America dropped more bombs than in all of WW2 (and that's just in Laos, I think) yet still lost.

But this is because SE Asia was a deeply poor, rural society, with few big cities to hammer, and a reduction to peasant life was far easier to endure, as most of it was down there already. Reducing Germans and Japanese in 1945 to living in fields was a very different matter

And it could have happened

When people speculate on what America might have done with Japan, absent nukes, and regarding the potential costs of the invasion (so many American troops dead and so on) I wonder if America would even have invaded. With total air supremacy, the Yanks could have conventionally reduced every single Japanese city to rubble, a la Tokyo, and done it again and again, even without invading. An endless obliteration. Just a few American lives lost. Millions of Japanese dead

Japan would surely have surrendered anyway, within weeks

Read Ian Toll's Pacific War Trilogy, it's the best history series I've read in a decade.

Casino_Royale said:

I might start putting my whole life through GPT-3: the advice I give to clients at work; the arguments I play back to my wife; the excuses I give to my colleagues; the banter I have with my friends.

Everything.

So, what does it think about AV?

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

The UK did.... 1.5m tests yesterday. Kids going back to school I guess (inc my older daughter)

That might be a record for any non micro-country throughout this hideous pandemic. We tested more than 2% of the entire population in a day.

At some point we reach overkill

On the other hand it does pleasingly remind me of the UK war industry in WW2. We started off sluggish and clueless. By the end we were churning out bombers and tanks by the ton, outclassing any enemy

'Outclassing'. Not in tanks, the UK weren't, apart from half a dozen Centurion barely in time to see any action, and thay as a special rush operation.

Fair enough. Planes. Which were the thing that mattered. As Bomber Harris knew

Sir max hastings wouldn’t agree. I picked up a hardback of his ‘Bomber Command’ cheap in Smiths a couple of weeks back. Full of praise, rightly so, for the courage of the air crew, and full of anger at the misguided approach of the senior air staff, and sadly, Harris himself. Harris tried to prove that bombing alone could defeat Germany, but only really proved able to inflict sufficient damage by late ‘44 and into ‘45, when the ground forces of all the nations, notably the Russians, had won the war. Hastings is quite convincing that the strategic bombing was the wrong approach, at least after ‘41 and ‘42 when the air campaign was crucial for morale, and to placate Stalin. The efforts of British industry to create the vast heavy bomber fleet could have been better used elsewhere.
It’s a good book, and great value at the £6 I paid.

I fundamentally disagree. And I have read widely on this subject (inc Hastings)

By the end, the UK and US were flattening German cities day and night. Total annihilation. It might have been cruel and unjustified, I certainly see that argument - but was it effective? Absolutely.

Total bombing works. The conventional but total bombing of Tokyo was part of the reason the Japanese surrendered, it wasn't just Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"The Bombing of Tokyo (東京大空襲, Tōkyōdaikūshū) was a series of firebombing air raids by the United States Army Air Forces during the Pacific campaigns of World War II. Operation Meetinghouse, which was conducted on the night of 9–10 March 1945, is the single most destructive bombing raid in human history.[1] Of central Tokyo 16 square miles (41 km2; 10,000 acres) were destroyed, leaving an estimated 100,000 civilians dead and over one million homeless.[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

No society can withstand such total destruction. Germany and Japan were being reduced to Neolithic living conditions by the outright air supremacy of the enemy. We *could* have won by bombing alone, I reckon - but at what moral cost? Bombing certainly aided our cause

I accept this is a debate which has lasted many decades and is unlikely to be settled tonight on PB

All good points, and I respect that you disagree. No question enormous destruction was being wrought by the end. The counter factual of a realistic attack on synthetic oil is of interest, but of course Harris abhorred the ‘panacea’ approach. I’d argue that the bomber campaigns were not fought in isolation from the epic eastern front conflict. Could the bombing campaign have been sustained if Germany had been solely concerned with air defence? The loses for both bomber command and 8th Air Force were colossal until almost the end. I cannot imagine the bravery of those airmen embarking on a tour with less than even chance of survival.
You are wise to say that we will not settle this, tonight, on pb, but it’s a fascinating subject.

It is fascinating. The counter argument is the Vietnam war, where America dropped more bombs than in all of WW2 (and that's just in Laos, I think) yet still lost.

But this is because SE Asia was a deeply poor, rural society, with few big cities to hammer, and a reduction to peasant life was far easier to endure, as most of it was down there already. Reducing Germans and Japanese in 1945 to living in fields was a very different matter

And it could have happened

When people speculate on what America might have done with Japan, absent nukes, and regarding the potential costs of the invasion (so many American troops dead and so on) I wonder if America would even have invaded. With total air supremacy, the Yanks could have conventionally reduced every single Japanese city to rubble, a la Tokyo, and done it again and again, even without invading. An endless obliteration. Just a few American lives lost. Millions of Japanese dead

Japan would surely have surrendered anyway, within weeks

Japan also surrendered quickly because the Russians finally decided to enter the Pacific War, invading Manchuria, Korea and Sakhalin, all Japanese-held at the time.

MarqueeMark said:

Beibheirli_C said:

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

Amateur hour again.
https://twitter.com/Barnes_Joe/status/1369375392298074114
https://twitter.com/laurnorman/status/1369378075465629706

OK Remainers, you have permission to cringe.

Yes, you put all that faith in these EU people. You really did.

To be fair to you, the alternative was Nigel Farage. But still - bloody embarrassing isn't it?

This is a new EU Commission. We Remainers had put our faith in a totally different set of clowns, now all gone.

Although how you have the nerve to talk about amateur hour with Boris in charge... a former journalist who has been fired for making his quotes up and who then hides in fridges from other journalists.

Under Johnson's govt we are in the top ten of deaths per 100,000.

The clown production line has no off-switch. Brussels just churns them out. And you, as a simple pleb, have no way to block that production line.

You can always vote to chuck out our clowns.

And on the deaths per 100,000? Let's see how it looks at the end eh? When the cheating and undercounting gets exposed by the excess death numbers.

Why would you assume EU nations are cheating and under counting? They aren't China, Russia, and such like. By all accounts Belgium is being stricter on numbers.

Casino_Royale said:

I might start putting my whole life through GPT-3: the advice I give to clients at work; the arguments I play back to my wife; the excuses I give to my colleagues; the banter I have with my friends.

Everything.

I'd wait for the fourth iteration, experience tells me the such AI's are more convincing.

RobD said:

Casino_Royale said:

I might start putting my whole life through GPT-3: the advice I give to clients at work; the arguments I play back to my wife; the excuses I give to my colleagues; the banter I have with my friends.

Everything.

So, what does it think about AV?

Wait to you see TSE's thread on Sunday?

Beibheirli_C said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/itihaasnaama/status/1369331165778296834

Strikingly bitter, glad only one side is wallowing in history there.

More like an Irish Times version of Quentin Letts, but he got one thing spot on ... "The contemporary royals have no real power. They serve entirely to enshrine classism in the British nonconstitution."

So what was the Guardian going on about when it was complaining about the number of times HM and Charles have influenced laws and debates in Parliament?

Beibheirli_C said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/itihaasnaama/status/1369331165778296834

Strikingly bitter, glad only one side is wallowing in history there.

More like an Irish Times version of Quentin Letts, but he got one thing spot on ... "The contemporary royals have no real power. They serve entirely to enshrine classism in the British nonconstitution."

I'm not sure classism would disappear without the royals.

Besides, there's no classism. Anyone can rise to the top, they just need to get enough money to send their sprogs to Eton.

Edit: Classism, not classicism. That you do get at Eton I imagine.

On the subject of "who to jab", there is a great Wired article from a few weeks ago that basically said that - in the US - you only need to vaccinate a couple of million people to reduce R below 1, if you identify and get those people protected.

It's really counter-intuitive, because it means jabbing young healthy people, rather than old (potentially sick) ones.

In a country like Spain or Italy (with multigenerational households) it would be a case of getting the same degree of protection from deaths and hospitalisations by jabbing the 22 year old grandson, rather than three 75 year old grandparents.

Of course, it might be a tough sell politically.

MarqueeMark said:

Beibheirli_C said:

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

Amateur hour again.
https://twitter.com/Barnes_Joe/status/1369375392298074114
https://twitter.com/laurnorman/status/1369378075465629706

OK Remainers, you have permission to cringe.

Yes, you put all that faith in these EU people. You really did.

To be fair to you, the alternative was Nigel Farage. But still - bloody embarrassing isn't it?

This is a new EU Commission. We Remainers had put our faith in a totally different set of clowns, now all gone.

Although how you have the nerve to talk about amateur hour with Boris in charge... a former journalist who has been fired for making his quotes up and who then hides in fridges from other journalists.

Under Johnson's govt we are in the top ten of deaths per 100,000.

The clown production line has no off-switch. Brussels just churns them out. And you, as a simple pleb, have no way to block that production line.

You can always vote to chuck out our clowns.

And on the deaths per 100,000? Let's see how it looks at the end eh? When the cheating and undercounting gets exposed by the excess death numbers.

Except we DID vote to chuck out the EU clowns. We did exactly what you are claiming we could not do.

RobD said:

Casino_Royale said:

I might start putting my whole life through GPT-3: the advice I give to clients at work; the arguments I play back to my wife; the excuses I give to my colleagues; the banter I have with my friends.

Everything.

So, what does it think about AV?

Frustrated by democracy? Say goodbye to tactical voting with The Alternative Vote, which ensures more votes count and that everyone elected has majority support of voters in their constituency

It’s time to do what’s right for democracy. Make voting better by changing the way we elect our MPs with the Alternative Vote. By making sure that every vote counts, our representatives will be truly accountable.

It’s time to level the playing field. The Alternative Vote will make sure that your voice counts too.

It’s time to fix our electoral system. The Alternative Vote makes sure your voice and your vote counts. Sign the petition today.

There’s so much wrong with our current voting system. With the Alternative Vote, you have more choice and it’s fair.

Are you tired of voting for a MP who doesn’t represent you? If so, switch to the Alternative Vote. It allows you to rank your choices, ensuring every vote is counted and that elected officials are truly accountable to their constituency.

If you’re fed up with the way our current system lets down both voters and MPs, it’s time to think about a new way.

RobD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/itihaasnaama/status/1369331165778296834

Strikingly bitter, glad only one side is wallowing in history there.

More like an Irish Times version of Quentin Letts, but he got one thing spot on ... "The contemporary royals have no real power. They serve entirely to enshrine classism in the British nonconstitution."

So what was the Guardian going on about when it was complaining about the number of times HM and Charles have influenced laws and debates in Parliament?

I have no idea. Send them an email and let us know what they say

I am not sure if this site has already been posted but the Primary Care guidance letters on vaccination make interesting and encouraging reading.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccination-programme/primary-care-guidance/

A key quote for me from the 'Vaccination plans for PCN vaccination sites for 8 to 29 March' letter:

"The Government now expects vaccine supply for new first doses to increase substantially over the weeks of 15, 22 and 29 March. Every site should expect to be able to receive, and use swiftly in each of these weeks, around twice the level of vaccine supply previously available with precise details to be confirmed shortly on a site-by-site level. We are expecting that much of the vaccine supplied to the programme and allocated to sites in the weeks of 15 and 22 March will need to be used by the end of the month."

dodrade said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/itihaasnaama/status/1369331165778296834

Hard to believe now The Irish Times was a Unionist newspaper a hunded years ago.

Hard to believe the UK (Thatcher) invented the EU Single Market less than 40 years ago

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1369398895617409033

Sod it. Let’s just walk away. The difference in disruption between what we have and nothing is limited.

Now Charles Michel's spokesman is tweeting out an old article about medicine exports. They have completely lost their minds.
https://twitter.com/laurnorman/status/1369401867550220292