Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Pence for the 2024 nomination looks a good bet at 14/1 – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 21 in General
imagePence for the 2024 nomination looks a good bet at 14/1 – politicalbetting.com

.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,358
    Justin's election gambit about to blow up in His face?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,526
    Well...

    I suspect this is not a great bet. Pence is - despite four years of devoted service - persona non grata with the Trump wing of the party for his failure to back the President at the end.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,813
    Looks like the Conservatives may have picked up Coast Of Bays in Newfoundland, which was one of the more difficult targets in that area. They've failed to take Labrador which was slightly easier.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,352
    Con now lead in 9 seats in Atlantic Canada.

    Last GE, Con won 4.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,612
    edited September 21
    Not a bad bet, Pence is the kind of dull establishment choice that parties running against an incumbent (with no meaningful primary on the other side for moderate voters to vote in) usually choose. If you had to pick the next in the series Bob Dole, John Kerry, Mitt Romney, Joe Biden, the answer is Mike Pence.

    I guess argument against is that he probably doesn't beat Trump if Trump runs, and if Trump *doesn't* run then it seems bad to be the candidate that Trump's part of the base literally want to hang by the neck until he's dead. Also I feel like Biden notwithstanding, the social media age demands a little bit more feistiness from candidates; Maybe look at Chris Christie.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,526
    Iirc, postal votes don't get opened until tomorrow in Canada, so unless results are *very* obvious, caution is required
  • Afghanistan: MoD shared more than 250 Afghan interpreters' details on email

    Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has launched an investigation into a data breach involving the email addresses of dozens of Afghan interpreters who worked for British forces.
    ...
    "Some of the interpreters didn't notice the mistake and they replied to all the emails already and they explained their situation which is very dangerous. The email contains their profile pictures and contact details."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58629592

    God help them. And why is this sort of cock-up not automatically blocked by default?
  • Not a bad bet, Pence is the kind of dull establishment choice that parties running against an incumbent (with no meaningful primary on the other side for moderate voters to vote in) usually choose. If you had to pick the next in the series Bob Dole, John Kerry, Mitt Romney, Joe Biden, the answer is Mike Pence.

    I guess argument against is that he probably doesn't beat Trump if Trump runs, and if Trump *doesn't* run then it seems bad to be the candidate that Trump's part of the base literally want to hang by the neck until he's dead. Also I feel like Biden notwithstanding, the social media age demands a little bit more feistiness from candidates; Maybe look at Chris Christie.

    Mike Pence was Trump's link to the religious right, and that is a powerful bloc. Not big enough to guarantee victory but perhaps to block Trump. Pence was also Trump's man dealing with Covid, which was hardly a success. My guess is that if Trump and Pence both run, they might cut each other's throats and allow someone else through the middle. Could there be another joint bid, perhaps contingent on an agreed handover, on the grounds it is better to hang together than to be hanged separately?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,813
    edited September 21
    Very big swing in South Shore—St Margarets in Nova Scotia. Liberals were defending a 14% majority and the Conservatives are currently ahead by about 5%. Postal votes may change the result.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    Yes if Trump does not run again then Pence has a good chance, former VPs have got the nomination when they sought it eg Mondale.

    Plus Crist currently leads De Santis in Florida governor polls so De Santis may not be a candidate either
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    edited September 21
    Liberals now clearly ahead in Canada.

    Of those seats reporting the Liberals are on 87, the Conservatives on 40 and the NDP and BQ each on 15 and the Greens on 1.

    So on current results Trudeau's Liberals would even have a majority but of course most of the West is yet to report and that is the Conservatives best region though the Liberals lead in a handful of Alberta seats and they won 0 there in 2019


    https://globalnews.ca/news/8164886/live-canada-election-results-2021-real-time-results-federal-election/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    edited September 21
    Liberals now lead in 104 seats, Conservatives in 51
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    edited September 21
    Liberals now lead in 126 seats and Conservatives in 59, the BQ now ahead of the NDP too on 25 seats to 17 though the NDP's best province of BQ yet to really report.

    Liberals doing better than expected in BC of the votes in so far though, even leading in a few NDP and Conservative seats. Liberals also doing better than in 2019 in urban Alberta ie Edmonton and Calgary and could win back a handful of seats they lost there at the last election to the Conservatives
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    Some better news for the Conservatives, they have picked up Cumberland Colchester in Nova Scotia from the Liberals
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    edited September 21
    Liberals now leading in 140, Conservatives leading in 98 as more of the West starts to report, BQ lead in 28 and NDP in 22 and Greens in 1. Not great results for the NDP so far, they are doing worse than in 2019 of the results in so far, Conservatives now leading in more seats than they got in 2015 but not yet doing as well as they did in 2019, Liberals as things stand should be largest party but unlikely to get the majority Trudeau wanted as he got in 2015

    https://globalnews.ca/news/8164886/live-canada-election-results-2021-real-time-results-federal-election/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    edited September 21
    In the national popular vote the Liberals lead on 37.4% with the Conservatives on 32.8% and the NDP on 16.2%, the BQ on 5.3% and the PPC on 4.7%.

    That would be a swing from Conservatives to Liberals of 2.9% since 2019.

    https://enr.elections.ca/National.aspx?lang=e

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    edited September 21
    Global News indeed just projected another Liberal government, Trudeau to be re elected.

    Currently Liberals lead in 151 seats, Conservatives in 117, BQ in 28 and NDP in 27 and Greens in 3.

    Conservatives not doing enough and still below their 2019 total then, NDP now fractionally above their 2019 total, otherwise little change and Trudeau's Liberals win most seats and he will get another minority government

    Night all
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,526
    @HYUFD - thanks for your commentary on this.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,813
    The Conservatives have won the popular vote again, and it looks like they might win the popular vote in Ontario this time.

    https://enr.elections.ca/National.aspx?lang=e
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,395
    CBC Projects:

    154 Lib
    121 Con
    30 NDP
    30 BQ
    2 Green
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,526
    edited September 21
    Andy_JS said:

    The Conservatives have won the popular vote again, and it looks like they might win the popular vote in Ontario this time.

    https://enr.elections.ca/National.aspx?lang=e

    We probably need to wait for all the numbers are in to make that call for sure - there's still postals to come, and the Pacific West (where the NDP is strongest) has barely reported.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    edited September 21
    Andy_JS said:

    The Conservatives have won the popular vote again, and it looks like they might win the popular vote in Ontario this time.

    https://enr.elections.ca/National.aspx?lang=e

    By 0.6% at present though, they won it by 1.22% in 2019 so still a slight swing against them when they needed a clear swing to them to win most seats.

    O'Toole doing better in Ontario relative to 2019 than he is nationally but still nowhere near enough for him to become PM
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,813
    Latest information: Tory share and seats up slightly, Liberals share and seats down slightly.

    https://enr.elections.ca/Provinces.aspx?lang=e
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,526
    Andy_JS said:

    Latest information: Tory share and seats up slightly, Liberals share and seats down slightly.

    https://enr.elections.ca/Provinces.aspx?lang=e

    So, it's Conservatives +1 (seat/riding), Liberals -1, BQ -3, NDP +4, Others -1

    Basically, it's a "why did they bother" election.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,526
    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Latest information: Tory share and seats up slightly, Liberals share and seats down slightly.

    https://enr.elections.ca/Provinces.aspx?lang=e

    So, it's Conservatives +1 (seat/riding), Liberals -1, BQ -3, NDP +4, Others -1

    Basically, it's a "why did they bother" election.
    I spoke to soon...

    It's now Cons and Libs with literally no change at all on 2019.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,526
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Latest information: Tory share and seats up slightly, Liberals share and seats down slightly.

    https://enr.elections.ca/Provinces.aspx?lang=e

    So, it's Conservatives +1 (seat/riding), Liberals -1, BQ -3, NDP +4, Others -1

    Basically, it's a "why did they bother" election.
    I spoke to soon...

    It's now Cons and Libs with literally no change at all on 2019.
    And now it's back to Cons +1, etc.

    Sigh.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963
    So has Trudeau done a Theresa May here? A few minor changes, but enough to deny the incumbent his majority.

    Do we know if the postal votes are likely to be Conservative or Liberal biased?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,612
    edited September 21
    Sandpit said:

    So has Trudeau done a Theresa May here? A few minor changes, but enough to deny the incumbent his majority.

    Not really, because TMay started with a majority and lost it, whereas Trudeau didn't have one in the first place.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,526
    Sandpit said:

    So has Trudeau done a Theresa May here? A few minor changes, but enough to deny the incumbent his majority.

    Do we know if the postal votes are likely to be Conservative or Liberal biased?

    It's looking like he'll be very sightly up on 2019.

    But the whole thing was ridiculous. Two years in - absent some major event like Brexit - is incredibly self indulgent.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,526
    Sandpit said:

    So has Trudeau done a Theresa May here? A few minor changes, but enough to deny the incumbent his majority.

    Do we know if the postal votes are likely to be Conservative or Liberal biased?

    And to your second question, we have no idea.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,526
    Right now, the seat changes are

    Lib +1
    Con -
    BQ -1
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,526
    rcs1000 said:

    Right now, the seat changes are

    Lib +1
    Con -
    BQ -1

    Oh, and Greens -1 and NDP +1
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,720
    edited September 21
    Made me chuckle on a rainy morning!



    Sorry about the tiny image!
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    rcs1000 said:

    Well...

    I suspect this is not a great bet. Pence is - despite four years of devoted service - persona non grata with the Trump wing of the party for his failure to back the President at the end.

    But all the more impressive in my eyes for not supporting him. I know little of him, bit its a major plus..
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,978
    The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.

    The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France?


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-france-aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-britain-ambassador-indo-pacific-11632166702?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/pe3wcrv077
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,978
    Erin O'Toole, the leader of Canada's main opposition Conservative Party, conceded defeat after failing to block Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberals from securing a third term

    https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1440181836668231689?s=20

    R4 commentator remarking that Trudeau’s early poll lead lost over the campaign and he didn’t get majority he wanted, Canadians resenting “unnecessary” election.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,526

    The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.

    The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France?


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-france-aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-britain-ambassador-indo-pacific-11632166702?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/pe3wcrv077

    I think that slightly overstates the case: the reason the Australians went with the French was because the Americans weren't willing to sell nuclear powered subs to the Aussies, and didn't have a diesel electric design.

    Frankly, the French were the only game in town. (Britain is unable to sell nuclear powered subs to third parties because we license some reactor technology from the US.)

    To me, the most interesting part is that the Americans are now willing to sell nuclear subs to allies. That's potentially game changing for the Taiwanese, for example.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,978
    rcs1000 said:

    The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.

    The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France?


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-france-aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-britain-ambassador-indo-pacific-11632166702?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/pe3wcrv077

    I think that slightly overstates the case: the reason the Australians went with the French was because the Americans weren't willing to sell nuclear powered subs to the Aussies, and didn't have a diesel electric design.

    Frankly, the French were the only game in town. (Britain is unable to sell nuclear powered subs to third parties because we license some reactor technology from the US.)

    To me, the most interesting part is that the Americans are now willing to sell nuclear subs to allies. That's potentially game changing for the Taiwanese, for example.
    I doubt Taiwan would get nuclear subs with weapons grade uranium!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,194
    Cyclefree said:

    Jolly glad I bought a load of candles yesterday.

    Up very early indeed as am going to the Chelsea Flower Show today. Husband was due to come but has decided against. I think it safe to leave him so he kindly gave me permission. We are, as I am sure you have all realised by now, a very traditional family. And of course I did not need to cook him dinner before I left!

    😁

    Glad he seems well enough to be left, and for the worries to be subsiding. Enjoy your day.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,931
    edited September 21
    fpt
    rcs1000 said:

    It's even better when you click on it:

    West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, which is not to be confused with West Vancouver-Sea to Sky.

    Because who could possibly get those two electoral districts confused by their names.

    The Sea to Sky Highway is of course an iconic road in Canada linking Vancouver to Whistler and is a fantastic journey especially as on it you know you are heading for an amazing time in Whistler.

    Like calling a district wherein it runs the Route 66 District or similar.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,547
    edited September 21
    Cyclefree said:

    Jolly glad I bought a load of candles yesterday.

    Up very early indeed as am going to the Chelsea Flower Show today. Husband was due to come but has decided against. I think it safe to leave him so he kindly gave me permission. We are, as I am sure you have all realised by now, a very traditional family. And of course I did not need to cook him dinner before I left!

    😁

    Have a good day out, sounds like a much needed break enjoy!

    Glad Mr Cyclefree is on the mend.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,547
    A grim landmark:

    NEW: U.S. coronavirus death toll hits 677,000, surpassing the number of Americans who died during the Spanish Flu pandemic

    https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1440056242680963075?s=19

    Though only a third when adjusted for population.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    Canada. What a damp squib.

    Oh well.
  • TOPPING said:

    fpt

    rcs1000 said:

    It's even better when you click on it:

    West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, which is not to be confused with West Vancouver-Sea to Sky.

    Because who could possibly get those two electoral districts confused by their names.

    The Sea to Sky Highway is of course an iconic road in Canada linking Vancouver to Whistler and is a fantastic journey especially as on it you know you are heading for an amazing time in Whistler.

    Like calling a district wherein it runs the Route 66 District or similar.

    My eldest son was celebrity snowboarder at Whistler in 1990
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,691
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Right now, the seat changes are

    Lib +1
    Con -
    BQ -1

    Oh, and Greens -1 and NDP +1
    Canada living up to its reputation as the most interesting place on Earth.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,691
    On topic, I think Pence is worth having a small bet on at 14/1 but I think that is the right price and I certainly wouldn't back him any lower. A lot of people are focusing on his opposition to Trump but it is worth bearing in mind that he comes with a fair bit of baggage that might make him unacceptable to the non-Trumpist wings of the party. For example, Pence has very strong views on abortion (as opposed to Trump's opportunistic view). A fair few of the traditional Republican base will know that will make Pence toxic to many of the suburban, educated voters that Trump lost in 2020, especially if Roe v Wade is a major political issue.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    edited September 21
    Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.

    With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.

    However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Canadian_federal_election
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    MrEd said:

    On topic, I think Pence is worth having a small bet on at 14/1 but I think that is the right price and I certainly wouldn't back him any lower. A lot of people are focusing on his opposition to Trump but it is worth bearing in mind that he comes with a fair bit of baggage that might make him unacceptable to the non-Trumpist wings of the party. For example, Pence has very strong views on abortion (as opposed to Trump's opportunistic view). A fair few of the traditional Republican base will know that will make Pence toxic to many of the suburban, educated voters that Trump lost in 2020, especially if Roe v Wade is a major political issue.

    However equally it will make him a strong prospect to win the primaries given pro life evangelicals make up almost half of GOP primary voters now.

    I see Charlie Crist would beat DeSantis in Florida in the governor's race next year too if he gets the Democratic nomination on the latest polling so if that was the case Pence would be the main non Trump candidate if Trump runs again and the frontrunner if Trump does not run

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Florida_gubernatorial_election
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,194
    edited September 21
    HYUFD said:

    Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.

    With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.

    However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Canadian_federal_election

    FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.

    At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    edited September 21

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.

    With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.

    However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Canadian_federal_election

    FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.

    At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
    I am sure Trudeau is very grateful this morning he stuck with FPTP otherwise it would be O'Toole preparing to lead a minority government not him.

    Personally I am not a diehard FPTP fan, I voted for AV in 2011 and doubt it will make any difference in London, Boris won under the current supplementary system and Bailey and Goldsmith and Norris would all have lost under FPTP anyway
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,182
    rcs1000 said:

    The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.

    The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France?


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-france-aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-britain-ambassador-indo-pacific-11632166702?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/pe3wcrv077

    I think that slightly overstates the case: the reason the Australians went with the French was because the Americans weren't willing to sell nuclear powered subs to the Aussies, and didn't have a diesel electric design.

    Frankly, the French were the only game in town. (Snip)
    I'm unsure that's fully correct. The Australian government at the time (2009-2016 timeframe) didn't want nuclear power.

    Their main requirements appear to have been
    As much as possible constructed in Aussie shipyard(s).
    Conventional powerplant
    Very large range.
    Modern, western weapons systems.

    They talked to Japan about their existing Soryu class, but the deal broke down (I think mainly because of the amount of work that would be done in Oz). The Spanish sub is a literal joke, and the Germans' one is too small for their requirements.

    Therefore they basically needed a bespoke sub - one with the latest tech, but with mahoosive range. Nuclear power is ideal for the latter requirement, but the Australians specifically did not want it. The Aussie who wrote the requirements spec want to work in France, and, lo and behold! - the French offer a conventional version of their Barracuda nuclear submarine. Which, to all intents and purposes, is a brand-new design.

    The Aussies should either have dropped the no-nuclear requirement back around 2010, or gone with the Soryu deal and built a second sub base on another coast. It would have saved them a heck of a lot of time, money and anguish.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,931

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    rcs1000 said:

    It's even better when you click on it:

    West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, which is not to be confused with West Vancouver-Sea to Sky.

    Because who could possibly get those two electoral districts confused by their names.

    The Sea to Sky Highway is of course an iconic road in Canada linking Vancouver to Whistler and is a fantastic journey especially as on it you know you are heading for an amazing time in Whistler.

    Like calling a district wherein it runs the Route 66 District or similar.

    My eldest son was celebrity snowboarder at Whistler in 1990
    Just before my time Big G but it was party time there every year when I did go.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,194
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.

    With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.

    However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Canadian_federal_election

    FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.

    At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
    I am sure Trudeau is very grateful this morning he stuck with FPTP otherwise it would be O'Toole preparing to lead a minority government not him
    Probably, to be fair, but let's wait and see.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,547
    MrEd said:

    On topic, I think Pence is worth having a small bet on at 14/1 but I think that is the right price and I certainly wouldn't back him any lower. A lot of people are focusing on his opposition to Trump but it is worth bearing in mind that he comes with a fair bit of baggage that might make him unacceptable to the non-Trumpist wings of the party. For example, Pence has very strong views on abortion (as opposed to Trump's opportunistic view). A fair few of the traditional Republican base will know that will make Pence toxic to many of the suburban, educated voters that Trump lost in 2020, especially if Roe v Wade is a major political issue.

    Yes, I don't see much value in Pence. The Qanon nutters won't forgive him for his actions in January, the anti-Trumpists won't forgive him for being his VP and enabler. Not impossible, but 14/1 doesn't look like value to me.

    The 2024 campaign is going to be a choice between varieties of awful as America consumes itself.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,437
    So the CCP somehow contrived to INCREASE their inefficiency. They have a big problem here.
  • Pence is a leading advocate for Gilead - does America really want him? The only thing going for him is that he didn't acquiesce to the coup. And if you are a trumper the main problem with him is that he didn't allow himself to be linched and thus start the coup proper.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,950
    rcs1000 said:

    The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.

    The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France?


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-france-aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-britain-ambassador-indo-pacific-11632166702?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/pe3wcrv077

    I think that slightly overstates the case: the reason the Australians went with the French was because the Americans weren't willing to sell nuclear powered subs to the Aussies, and didn't have a diesel electric design.

    Frankly, the French were the only game in town. (Britain is unable to sell nuclear powered subs to third parties because we license some reactor technology from the US.)

    To me, the most interesting part is that the Americans are now willing to sell nuclear subs to allies. That's potentially game changing for the Taiwanese, for example.
    France weren't the only game in town.
    Japan had a very capable design (the Soryu) already in service, whose range could easily have been extended to meet Australian requirements. It's recently lunched successor is even better.

    And the chances of the US selling nuclear boats to Taiwan is somewhere around zero.
    The French might now be tempted ?

    (Incidentally, a US worry about Taiwan is they can't build enough of their own subs over the next decade to replace the one they are retiring, which creates a temporary weakness in their ability to deploy in the area.)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,547

    rcs1000 said:

    The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.

    The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France?


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-france-aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-britain-ambassador-indo-pacific-11632166702?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/pe3wcrv077

    I think that slightly overstates the case: the reason the Australians went with the French was because the Americans weren't willing to sell nuclear powered subs to the Aussies, and didn't have a diesel electric design.

    Frankly, the French were the only game in town. (Snip)
    I'm unsure that's fully correct. The Australian government at the time (2009-2016 timeframe) didn't want nuclear power.

    Their main requirements appear to have been
    As much as possible constructed in Aussie shipyard(s).
    Conventional powerplant
    Very large range.
    Modern, western weapons systems.

    They talked to Japan about their existing Soryu class, but the deal broke down (I think mainly because of the amount of work that would be done in Oz). The Spanish sub is a literal joke, and the Germans' one is too small for their requirements.

    Therefore they basically needed a bespoke sub - one with the latest tech, but with mahoosive range. Nuclear power is ideal for the latter requirement, but the Australians specifically did not want it. The Aussie who wrote the requirements spec want to work in France, and, lo and behold! - the French offer a conventional version of their Barracuda nuclear submarine. Which, to all intents and purposes, is a brand-new design.

    The Aussies should either have dropped the no-nuclear requirement back around 2010, or gone with the Soryu deal and built a second sub base on another coast. It would have saved them a heck of a lot of time, money and anguish.
    A submarine base on the northern coast would be simpler, but I don't think there are any suitable deep water harbours.
  • dixiedean said:

    So the CCP somehow contrived to INCREASE their inefficiency. They have a big problem here.

    It does rather expose the stupidity of FPTP.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,035
    edited September 21
    Sort of on topic, I see that Biden is trailing Trump in favourability polls:

    "Fifty-one percent of respondents now say Trump was a better president than Biden, while 49 percent prefer the White House’s current occupant, the poll shows."

    This new finding seems to be more people working out what a mediocrity Biden is, than any huge surge in love for Trump:

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/573036-poll-biden-trump-statistically-tied-in-favorability

    Definitely on topic, the poll gives Pence a 10% lead in favourability as VP over Harris.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,950
    MrEd said:

    On topic, I think Pence is worth having a small bet on at 14/1 but I think that is the right price and I certainly wouldn't back him any lower. A lot of people are focusing on his opposition to Trump but it is worth bearing in mind that he comes with a fair bit of baggage that might make him unacceptable to the non-Trumpist wings of the party. For example, Pence has very strong views on abortion (as opposed to Trump's opportunistic view). A fair few of the traditional Republican base will know that will make Pence toxic to many of the suburban, educated voters that Trump lost in 2020, especially if Roe v Wade is a major political issue.

    Pence is actually Trump's nearest challenger in recent polling:
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/573040-poll-trump-dominates-2024-republican-primary-field
    It's a very distant second, though, and if Trump were to drop out for some reason, I can't see him picking up much of Trump's support.

    Mike's idea of a groundswell of independent and Democrats registering to take down Trump in the primaries seems a little fanciful given his huge lead - and if he doesn't run, it's not going to happen anyway.

    14/1 might be a fairish price, but it's a trading bet at best.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,691

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.

    With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.

    However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Canadian_federal_election

    FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.

    At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
    The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,950
    HYUFD said:

    Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.

    With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.

    However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Canadian_federal_election

    Who argued that ?
    The critique of FPTP is that it is undemocratic. This just provides a bit more evidence.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,547
    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.

    With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.

    However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Canadian_federal_election

    FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.

    At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
    The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
    It is to a degree, but it is also a feature of fragmentation of political parties. FPTP only really works effectively where it is a 2 party system. Unless strongly regionalised such as SNP or BQ other parties have little chance.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,182
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.

    The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France?


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-france-aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-britain-ambassador-indo-pacific-11632166702?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/pe3wcrv077

    I think that slightly overstates the case: the reason the Australians went with the French was because the Americans weren't willing to sell nuclear powered subs to the Aussies, and didn't have a diesel electric design.

    Frankly, the French were the only game in town. (Snip)
    I'm unsure that's fully correct. The Australian government at the time (2009-2016 timeframe) didn't want nuclear power.

    Their main requirements appear to have been
    As much as possible constructed in Aussie shipyard(s).
    Conventional powerplant
    Very large range.
    Modern, western weapons systems.

    They talked to Japan about their existing Soryu class, but the deal broke down (I think mainly because of the amount of work that would be done in Oz). The Spanish sub is a literal joke, and the Germans' one is too small for their requirements.

    Therefore they basically needed a bespoke sub - one with the latest tech, but with mahoosive range. Nuclear power is ideal for the latter requirement, but the Australians specifically did not want it. The Aussie who wrote the requirements spec want to work in France, and, lo and behold! - the French offer a conventional version of their Barracuda nuclear submarine. Which, to all intents and purposes, is a brand-new design.

    The Aussies should either have dropped the no-nuclear requirement back around 2010, or gone with the Soryu deal and built a second sub base on another coast. It would have saved them a heck of a lot of time, money and anguish.
    A submarine base on the northern coast would be simpler, but I don't think there are any suitable deep water harbours.
    I have next to no idea about the geography, but I'd be staggered if a coast that length had none. Or is that northern coast all shallow water, like the northeastern reefs?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,691
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.

    With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.

    However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Canadian_federal_election

    FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.

    At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
    The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
    It is to a degree, but it is also a feature of fragmentation of political parties. FPTP only really works effectively where it is a 2 party system. Unless strongly regionalised such as SNP or BQ other parties have little chance.
    I voted Ukip in 2015 and it didn't bother me that they only got one seat for 12.6% of the vote. Ultimately FPTP got us the referendum. Cameron and Osborne had nowhere to hide.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,523
    Cyclefree said:

    Jolly glad I bought a load of candles yesterday.

    Up very early indeed as am going to the Chelsea Flower Show today. Husband was due to come but has decided against. I think it safe to leave him so he kindly gave me permission. We are, as I am sure you have all realised by now, a very traditional family. And of course I did not need to cook him dinner before I left!

    😁

    Not able to get up to Chelsea this year, but enjoy the (likely unrepeated) novelty of autumn planting.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,014

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.

    The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France?


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-france-aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-britain-ambassador-indo-pacific-11632166702?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/pe3wcrv077

    I think that slightly overstates the case: the reason the Australians went with the French was because the Americans weren't willing to sell nuclear powered subs to the Aussies, and didn't have a diesel electric design.

    Frankly, the French were the only game in town. (Snip)
    I'm unsure that's fully correct. The Australian government at the time (2009-2016 timeframe) didn't want nuclear power.

    Their main requirements appear to have been
    As much as possible constructed in Aussie shipyard(s).
    Conventional powerplant
    Very large range.
    Modern, western weapons systems.

    They talked to Japan about their existing Soryu class, but the deal broke down (I think mainly because of the amount of work that would be done in Oz). The Spanish sub is a literal joke, and the Germans' one is too small for their requirements.

    Therefore they basically needed a bespoke sub - one with the latest tech, but with mahoosive range. Nuclear power is ideal for the latter requirement, but the Australians specifically did not want it. The Aussie who wrote the requirements spec want to work in France, and, lo and behold! - the French offer a conventional version of their Barracuda nuclear submarine. Which, to all intents and purposes, is a brand-new design.

    The Aussies should either have dropped the no-nuclear requirement back around 2010, or gone with the Soryu deal and built a second sub base on another coast. It would have saved them a heck of a lot of time, money and anguish.
    A submarine base on the northern coast would be simpler, but I don't think there are any suitable deep water harbours.
    I have next to no idea about the geography, but I'd be staggered if a coast that length had none. Or is that northern coast all shallow water, like the northeastern reefs?
    basing is a big issue that has not really been considered.... the enthusiasm for this deal among Asian neighbours/allies is the elephant in the room for Australia - I see virtually no evidence that Canberra's closest allies (NZ, Indonesia, E Timor, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore) have any enthusiasm at all for this project.... in effect there is nowhere to park these things up apart from US assets in Guam and maybe Japan. Audiences in SE Asia need to be won over as to how this initiative improves regional stabilty and cooperation (which is a big thing in ASEAN)...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,547

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.

    The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France?


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-france-aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-britain-ambassador-indo-pacific-11632166702?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/pe3wcrv077

    I think that slightly overstates the case: the reason the Australians went with the French was because the Americans weren't willing to sell nuclear powered subs to the Aussies, and didn't have a diesel electric design.

    Frankly, the French were the only game in town. (Snip)
    I'm unsure that's fully correct. The Australian government at the time (2009-2016 timeframe) didn't want nuclear power.

    Their main requirements appear to have been
    As much as possible constructed in Aussie shipyard(s).
    Conventional powerplant
    Very large range.
    Modern, western weapons systems.

    They talked to Japan about their existing Soryu class, but the deal broke down (I think mainly because of the amount of work that would be done in Oz). The Spanish sub is a literal joke, and the Germans' one is too small for their requirements.

    Therefore they basically needed a bespoke sub - one with the latest tech, but with mahoosive range. Nuclear power is ideal for the latter requirement, but the Australians specifically did not want it. The Aussie who wrote the requirements spec want to work in France, and, lo and behold! - the French offer a conventional version of their Barracuda nuclear submarine. Which, to all intents and purposes, is a brand-new design.

    The Aussies should either have dropped the no-nuclear requirement back around 2010, or gone with the Soryu deal and built a second sub base on another coast. It would have saved them a heck of a lot of time, money and anguish.
    A submarine base on the northern coast would be simpler, but I don't think there are any suitable deep water harbours.
    I have next to no idea about the geography, but I'd be staggered if a coast that length had none. Or is that northern coast all shallow water, like the northeastern reefs?
    I think that the Naval base at Darwin (HMAS Coonawara) has a draught of 2.5 metres, so not much more than patrol boats. Most of Queensland has the Great Barrier Reef.

    Port Hedland in Northern West Australia is perhaps suitable. It takes very large Iron ore carriers, but is rather remote from other infrastructure and technical expertise.



  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,950

    rcs1000 said:

    The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.

    The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France?


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-france-aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-britain-ambassador-indo-pacific-11632166702?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/pe3wcrv077

    I think that slightly overstates the case: the reason the Australians went with the French was because the Americans weren't willing to sell nuclear powered subs to the Aussies, and didn't have a diesel electric design.

    Frankly, the French were the only game in town. (Snip)
    I'm unsure that's fully correct. The Australian government at the time (2009-2016 timeframe) didn't want nuclear power.

    Their main requirements appear to have been
    As much as possible constructed in Aussie shipyard(s).
    Conventional powerplant
    Very large range.
    Modern, western weapons systems.

    They talked to Japan about their existing Soryu class, but the deal broke down (I think mainly because of the amount of work that would be done in Oz)....
    I'm pretty sure that's right - though the idea of Australia kickstarting a submarine building industry from scratch was a pretty crazy one at the time, as events have born out.
    If they intend to try to do the same with these nuclear subs, the same massive delays are likely to happen. It might make more sense for us to build them, given how little work we'll have after we finish building ours. AFAIK, the US doesn't have much in the way of spare capacity ?
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    rcs1000 said:

    It's even better when you click on it:

    West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, which is not to be confused with West Vancouver-Sea to Sky.

    Because who could possibly get those two electoral districts confused by their names.

    The Sea to Sky Highway is of course an iconic road in Canada linking Vancouver to Whistler and is a fantastic journey especially as on it you know you are heading for an amazing time in Whistler.

    Like calling a district wherein it runs the Route 66 District or similar.

    My eldest son was celebrity snowboarder at Whistler in 1990
    Just before my time Big G but it was party time there every year when I did go.
    He was a professional snowboarder at the time, and yes he knew how to party
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.

    With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.

    However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Canadian_federal_election

    FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.

    At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
    The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
    It should also be pointed out FPTP does not always benefit the Tories here either.

    Eg in February 1974 Heath's Tories won the popular vote but Wilson's Labour won most seats.

    In 2005 too Howard's Tories won the popular vote in England with 35.7% to 35.4% for Blair's Labour but Blair's Labour still comfortably won most seats in England with 286 to just 194 for Howard's Tories
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,547
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.

    With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.

    However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Canadian_federal_election

    FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.

    At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
    The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
    It is to a degree, but it is also a feature of fragmentation of political parties. FPTP only really works effectively where it is a 2 party system. Unless strongly regionalised such as SNP or BQ other parties have little chance.
    I voted Ukip in 2015 and it didn't bother me that they only got one seat for 12.6% of the vote. Ultimately FPTP got us the referendum. Cameron and Osborne had nowhere to hide.
    Yes, parties can influence without winning seats. The Greens are another example, but it is much weaker influence than a block in Parliament.

    The choice of parties in Germany is more to my taste.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,790
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.

    The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France?


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-france-aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-britain-ambassador-indo-pacific-11632166702?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/pe3wcrv077

    I think that slightly overstates the case: the reason the Australians went with the French was because the Americans weren't willing to sell nuclear powered subs to the Aussies, and didn't have a diesel electric design.

    Frankly, the French were the only game in town. (Snip)
    I'm unsure that's fully correct. The Australian government at the time (2009-2016 timeframe) didn't want nuclear power.

    Their main requirements appear to have been
    As much as possible constructed in Aussie shipyard(s).
    Conventional powerplant
    Very large range.
    Modern, western weapons systems.

    They talked to Japan about their existing Soryu class, but the deal broke down (I think mainly because of the amount of work that would be done in Oz)....
    I'm pretty sure that's right - though the idea of Australia kickstarting a submarine building industry from scratch was a pretty crazy one at the time, as events have born out.
    If they intend to try to do the same with these nuclear subs, the same massive delays are likely to happen. It might make more sense for us to build them, given how little work we'll have after we finish building ours. AFAIK, the US doesn't have much in the way of spare capacity ?
    Yep - that was mentioned below.

    It wouldn't surprise me if we end up building at least the first few as I believe the last of our Submarines are due to come off the production line in 2025...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,547
    edited September 21
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.

    The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France?


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-france-aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-britain-ambassador-indo-pacific-11632166702?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/pe3wcrv077

    I think that slightly overstates the case: the reason the Australians went with the French was because the Americans weren't willing to sell nuclear powered subs to the Aussies, and didn't have a diesel electric design.

    Frankly, the French were the only game in town. (Snip)
    I'm unsure that's fully correct. The Australian government at the time (2009-2016 timeframe) didn't want nuclear power.

    Their main requirements appear to have been
    As much as possible constructed in Aussie shipyard(s).
    Conventional powerplant
    Very large range.
    Modern, western weapons systems.

    They talked to Japan about their existing Soryu class, but the deal broke down (I think mainly because of the amount of work that would be done in Oz)....
    I'm pretty sure that's right - though the idea of Australia kickstarting a submarine building industry from scratch was a pretty crazy one at the time, as events have born out.
    If they intend to try to do the same with these nuclear subs, the same massive delays are likely to happen. It might make more sense for us to build them, given how little work we'll have after we finish building ours. AFAIK, the US doesn't have much in the way of spare capacity ?
    Yes, but the French contract fell apart on the amount of domestic Australian manufacturing input, there being a lot of pork-barrelling.

    Perhaps simpler to extend range would be a couple of submarine refuleing ships!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,691
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.

    With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.

    However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Canadian_federal_election

    FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.

    At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
    The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
    It is to a degree, but it is also a feature of fragmentation of political parties. FPTP only really works effectively where it is a 2 party system. Unless strongly regionalised such as SNP or BQ other parties have little chance.
    I voted Ukip in 2015 and it didn't bother me that they only got one seat for 12.6% of the vote. Ultimately FPTP got us the referendum. Cameron and Osborne had nowhere to hide.
    Yes, parties can influence without winning seats. The Greens are another example, but it is much weaker influence than a block in Parliament.

    The choice of parties in Germany is more to my taste.
    I'd say Ukip have been a lot more successful than the Lib Dems over the last 30 years.

    And in Germany, they have a choice of parties, but do they have a choice of government? I guess we're about to find out.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,907
    Nigelb said:


    If they intend to try to do the same with these nuclear subs, the same massive delays are likely to happen. It might make more sense for us to build them, given how little work we'll have after we finish building ours. AFAIK, the US doesn't have much in the way of spare capacity ?

    Where's all this British submarine building capacity? Barrow will be full of Astutes and Dreadnoughts until (at least) 2030. By then SSN(R) (the Astute replacement program) will be well under way.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963
    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.

    With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.

    However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Canadian_federal_election

    FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.

    At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
    The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
    In 1997, 2001 and especially 2005, there was a very different effect, and few complainers among those who complain now.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,790
    Nigelb said:

    MrEd said:

    On topic, I think Pence is worth having a small bet on at 14/1 but I think that is the right price and I certainly wouldn't back him any lower. A lot of people are focusing on his opposition to Trump but it is worth bearing in mind that he comes with a fair bit of baggage that might make him unacceptable to the non-Trumpist wings of the party. For example, Pence has very strong views on abortion (as opposed to Trump's opportunistic view). A fair few of the traditional Republican base will know that will make Pence toxic to many of the suburban, educated voters that Trump lost in 2020, especially if Roe v Wade is a major political issue.

    Pence is actually Trump's nearest challenger in recent polling:
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/573040-poll-trump-dominates-2024-republican-primary-field
    It's a very distant second, though, and if Trump were to drop out for some reason, I can't see him picking up much of Trump's support.

    Mike's idea of a groundswell of independent and Democrats registering to take down Trump in the primaries seems a little fanciful given his huge lead - and if he doesn't run, it's not going to happen anyway.

    14/1 might be a fairish price, but it's a trading bet at best.
    I think the logic goes:-

    No need to vote in a Democratic primary so the voters can try and ensure a sane(r) Republican candidate.

    Pence has name recognition but I suspect the baggage is too great. The problem is who else will stand on the "Not being Trump" platform. I suspect a lot depends on whether Trump stands and who else bothers if Trump is a candidate.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,790

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.

    The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France?


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-france-aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-britain-ambassador-indo-pacific-11632166702?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/pe3wcrv077

    I think that slightly overstates the case: the reason the Australians went with the French was because the Americans weren't willing to sell nuclear powered subs to the Aussies, and didn't have a diesel electric design.

    Frankly, the French were the only game in town. (Snip)
    I'm unsure that's fully correct. The Australian government at the time (2009-2016 timeframe) didn't want nuclear power.

    Their main requirements appear to have been
    As much as possible constructed in Aussie shipyard(s).
    Conventional powerplant
    Very large range.
    Modern, western weapons systems.

    They talked to Japan about their existing Soryu class, but the deal broke down (I think mainly because of the amount of work that would be done in Oz). The Spanish sub is a literal joke, and the Germans' one is too small for their requirements.

    Therefore they basically needed a bespoke sub - one with the latest tech, but with mahoosive range. Nuclear power is ideal for the latter requirement, but the Australians specifically did not want it. The Aussie who wrote the requirements spec want to work in France, and, lo and behold! - the French offer a conventional version of their Barracuda nuclear submarine. Which, to all intents and purposes, is a brand-new design.

    The Aussies should either have dropped the no-nuclear requirement back around 2010, or gone with the Soryu deal and built a second sub base on another coast. It would have saved them a heck of a lot of time, money and anguish.
    A submarine base on the northern coast would be simpler, but I don't think there are any suitable deep water harbours.
    I have next to no idea about the geography, but I'd be staggered if a coast that length had none. Or is that northern coast all shallow water, like the northeastern reefs?
    basing is a big issue that has not really been considered.... the enthusiasm for this deal among Asian neighbours/allies is the elephant in the room for Australia - I see virtually no evidence that Canberra's closest allies (NZ, Indonesia, E Timor, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore) have any enthusiasm at all for this project.... in effect there is nowhere to park these things up apart from US assets in Guam and maybe Japan. Audiences in SE Asia need to be won over as to how this initiative improves regional stabilty and cooperation (which is a big thing in ASEAN)...
    Why does a submarine need to be parked up anywhere? The entire point of a submarine is that it's sat/submerged, hidden at sea, location unknown.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,950
    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.

    The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France?


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-france-aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-britain-ambassador-indo-pacific-11632166702?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/pe3wcrv077

    I think that slightly overstates the case: the reason the Australians went with the French was because the Americans weren't willing to sell nuclear powered subs to the Aussies, and didn't have a diesel electric design.

    Frankly, the French were the only game in town. (Snip)
    I'm unsure that's fully correct. The Australian government at the time (2009-2016 timeframe) didn't want nuclear power.

    Their main requirements appear to have been
    As much as possible constructed in Aussie shipyard(s).
    Conventional powerplant
    Very large range.
    Modern, western weapons systems.

    They talked to Japan about their existing Soryu class, but the deal broke down (I think mainly because of the amount of work that would be done in Oz)....
    I'm pretty sure that's right - though the idea of Australia kickstarting a submarine building industry from scratch was a pretty crazy one at the time, as events have born out.
    If they intend to try to do the same with these nuclear subs, the same massive delays are likely to happen. It might make more sense for us to build them, given how little work we'll have after we finish building ours. AFAIK, the US doesn't have much in the way of spare capacity ?
    Yep - that was mentioned below.

    It wouldn't surprise me if we end up building at least the first few as I believe the last of our Submarines are due to come off the production line in 2025...
    I can't see it being the US, given their capacity constraints already give them a real strategic problem over this decade ?
    They might still get much of the value of the contract supplying the powerplants and weapon systems.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    edited September 21
    dixiedean said:

    So the CCP somehow contrived to INCREASE their inefficiency. They have a big problem here.

    It also looks like Trudeau has been astonishingly efficient in getting Liberal seats for votes in BC while the Conservatives have been astonishingly inefficient.

    In the popular vote in BC the Conservatives lead on 33.5% with the NDP second on 29% and the Liberals 3rd on just 26.8% but in seats the Liberals lead in BC on 15 with the Conservatives on 13 and the NDP also on 13

    https://enr.elections.ca/Provinces.aspx?lang=e
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,907
    Has anyone opined on the NPT implications of the Alliance of Awesome? Because delivering large quantities of highly enriched uranium to one of Adelaide's less salubrious suburbs definitely violates it. Is Frosty going to "renegotiate" it?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,182
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.

    The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France?


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-france-aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-britain-ambassador-indo-pacific-11632166702?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/pe3wcrv077

    I think that slightly overstates the case: the reason the Australians went with the French was because the Americans weren't willing to sell nuclear powered subs to the Aussies, and didn't have a diesel electric design.

    Frankly, the French were the only game in town. (Snip)
    I'm unsure that's fully correct. The Australian government at the time (2009-2016 timeframe) didn't want nuclear power.

    Their main requirements appear to have been
    As much as possible constructed in Aussie shipyard(s).
    Conventional powerplant
    Very large range.
    Modern, western weapons systems.

    They talked to Japan about their existing Soryu class, but the deal broke down (I think mainly because of the amount of work that would be done in Oz)....
    I'm pretty sure that's right - though the idea of Australia kickstarting a submarine building industry from scratch was a pretty crazy one at the time, as events have born out.
    If they intend to try to do the same with these nuclear subs, the same massive delays are likely to happen. It might make more sense for us to build them, given how little work we'll have after we finish building ours. AFAIK, the US doesn't have much in the way of spare capacity ?
    They already have an industry. The existing Australian Collins class were built at Australian Submarine Corporation, in South Australia. They really want to keep that capability, even if it is assembling componentware than constructing the full system. Having said that, apparently it took them decades to get the Collins class working correctly.

    Someone (Dura-Ace?) suggested that the nuclear section might be built for them, and they build the rest of the hull and vessel. Or they might have decided to abandon the idea of constructing them.

    "One of the main criteria of the project was that Australian industries contribute to at least 60% of the work; by the conclusion of the project 70% of the construction and 45% of the software preparation had been completed by Australian-owned companies"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins-class_submarine#Construction

    That link has an interesting paragraph. Why go to the cost of constructing them yourself, when it's cheaper to buy? The answer is that it can kickstart industry:

    "The project prompted major increases in quality control standards across Australian industries: in 1980, only 35 Australian companies possessed the appropriate quality control certifications for Defence projects, but by 1998 this had increased to over 1,500."
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,534
    Price cap here to stay says Bus Sec on BBC R4.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,088
    Pence is from the loony religious Right. He has no power base. These are the two reasons that Trump elevated him - he had the right background, but no actual supporters, money or power.

    Since Jan 6th - the Trumpets hate Pence. The non-fundies despise him.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,798
    edited September 21
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.

    The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France?


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-france-aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-britain-ambassador-indo-pacific-11632166702?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/pe3wcrv077

    I think that slightly overstates the case: the reason the Australians went with the French was because the Americans weren't willing to sell nuclear powered subs to the Aussies, and didn't have a diesel electric design.

    Frankly, the French were the only game in town. (Snip)
    I'm unsure that's fully correct. The Australian government at the time (2009-2016 timeframe) didn't want nuclear power.

    Their main requirements appear to have been
    As much as possible constructed in Aussie shipyard(s).
    Conventional powerplant
    Very large range.
    Modern, western weapons systems.

    They talked to Japan about their existing Soryu class, but the deal broke down (I think mainly because of the amount of work that would be done in Oz)....
    I'm pretty sure that's right - though the idea of Australia kickstarting a submarine building industry from scratch was a pretty crazy one at the time, as events have born out.
    If they intend to try to do the same with these nuclear subs, the same massive delays are likely to happen. It might make more sense for us to build them, given how little work we'll have after we finish building ours. AFAIK, the US doesn't have much in the way of spare capacity ?
    We've got the dreadnought class programme after the last Astute is finished. I that that takes us all the way to 2035. Installing another production line will be costly and I'm sure the Australians would rather spend the money domestically.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,088
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.

    The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France?


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-france-aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-britain-ambassador-indo-pacific-11632166702?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/pe3wcrv077

    I think that slightly overstates the case: the reason the Australians went with the French was because the Americans weren't willing to sell nuclear powered subs to the Aussies, and didn't have a diesel electric design.

    Frankly, the French were the only game in town. (Snip)
    I'm unsure that's fully correct. The Australian government at the time (2009-2016 timeframe) didn't want nuclear power.

    Their main requirements appear to have been
    As much as possible constructed in Aussie shipyard(s).
    Conventional powerplant
    Very large range.
    Modern, western weapons systems.

    They talked to Japan about their existing Soryu class, but the deal broke down (I think mainly because of the amount of work that would be done in Oz)....
    I'm pretty sure that's right - though the idea of Australia kickstarting a submarine building industry from scratch was a pretty crazy one at the time, as events have born out.
    If they intend to try to do the same with these nuclear subs, the same massive delays are likely to happen. It might make more sense for us to build them, given how little work we'll have after we finish building ours. AFAIK, the US doesn't have much in the way of spare capacity ?
    Yes, but the French contract fell apart on the amount of domestic Australian manufacturing input, there being a lot of pork-barrelling.

    Perhaps simpler to extend range would be a couple of submarine refuleing ships!
    The reason that no-one does that is the history of such attempts. Type XIV and all that. Epic failures....
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,194
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.

    With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.

    However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Canadian_federal_election

    FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.

    At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
    The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
    In 1997, 2001 and especially 2005, there was a very different effect, and few complainers among those who complain now.
    Not so, at least in my case.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,182
    Dura_Ace said:

    Has anyone opined on the NPT implications of the Alliance of Awesome? Because delivering large quantities of highly enriched uranium to one of Adelaide's less salubrious suburbs definitely violates it. Is Frosty going to "renegotiate" it?

    A question about that: will the Australians actually need to handle the fissionable material? With modern reactors having a 25+ year life, might they just send the boats back to the manufacturer for refuelling when the time comes?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    edited September 21

    Pence is from the loony religious Right. He has no power base. These are the two reasons that Trump elevated him - he had the right background, but no actual supporters, money or power.

    Since Jan 6th - the Trumpets hate Pence. The non-fundies despise him.

    Yes but evangelicals make up almost half of GOP primary voters, if Trump does not run again Trumpites may not bother to vote in the primaries so Pence as a former VP popular with evangelicals could end up frontrunner. Even if Trump does run again if Pence can use evangelicals as his base and win over independents he would have a shot
  • Price cap here to stay says Bus Sec on BBC R4.

    Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,534

    Pence is from the loony religious Right. He has no power base. These are the two reasons that Trump elevated him - he had the right background, but no actual supporters, money or power.

    Since Jan 6th - the Trumpets hate Pence. The non-fundies despise him.

    Plenty of loony religious right amongst the primary voters surely?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,363
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.

    With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.

    However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Canadian_federal_election

    FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.

    At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
    The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
    In 1997, 2001 and especially 2005, there was a very different effect, and few complainers among those who complain now.
    Everyone knows these things:

    There is no single approach which delivers a thing called democracy, because the concept, while excellent, is an abstraction not a system.

    All available system options have pluses and minuses, all of which are well known.

    Discussion should centre round what system delivers better than the others overall, and what 'better' might mean.

    (IMHO the alternative vote system is the one tweak needed in FPTP, leaving its virtues more or less intact but allowing greater scope for the emergence of alternatives. But as we democratically rejected it FPTP it is.)



  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,088

    rcs1000 said:

    The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.

    The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France?


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-france-aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-britain-ambassador-indo-pacific-11632166702?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/pe3wcrv077

    I think that slightly overstates the case: the reason the Australians went with the French was because the Americans weren't willing to sell nuclear powered subs to the Aussies, and didn't have a diesel electric design.

    Frankly, the French were the only game in town. (Snip)
    I'm unsure that's fully correct. The Australian government at the time (2009-2016 timeframe) didn't want nuclear power.

    Their main requirements appear to have been
    As much as possible constructed in Aussie shipyard(s).
    Conventional powerplant
    Very large range.
    Modern, western weapons systems.

    They talked to Japan about their existing Soryu class, but the deal broke down (I think mainly because of the amount of work that would be done in Oz). The Spanish sub is a literal joke, and the Germans' one is too small for their requirements.

    Therefore they basically needed a bespoke sub - one with the latest tech, but with mahoosive range. Nuclear power is ideal for the latter requirement, but the Australians specifically did not want it. The Aussie who wrote the requirements spec want to work in France, and, lo and behold! - the French offer a conventional version of their Barracuda nuclear submarine. Which, to all intents and purposes, is a brand-new design.

    The Aussies should either have dropped the no-nuclear requirement back around 2010, or gone with the Soryu deal and built a second sub base on another coast. It would have saved them a heck of a lot of time, money and anguish.
    Various people (with various levels of power/influence) in Australia have been advocating nuclear subs, pretty much since nuclear subs were invented. The two solid arguments against were cost and (a bit later) the politics of nuclear.

    It seems that the French contract broke the back of the cost argument - by ending up with a cost per sub that was in the nuclear range anyway.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,351
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Divvie, question is, if the lights go out for us, do they go out for the PM?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,907

    Dura_Ace said:

    Has anyone opined on the NPT implications of the Alliance of Awesome? Because delivering large quantities of highly enriched uranium to one of Adelaide's less salubrious suburbs definitely violates it. Is Frosty going to "renegotiate" it?

    A question about that: will the Australians actually need to handle the fissionable material? With modern reactors having a 25+ year life, might they just send the boats back to the manufacturer for refuelling when the time comes?
    Who the fuck knows? Delivering a completed reactor would still be an NPT violation I think.

    It's all been left purposefully vague, like Brexit in 2016, so that all manner of hopes, dreams and fantasies (like building the submarines in the UK) can be projected onto its tabula rasa.
This discussion has been closed.