Howdy, Stranger!

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

The French election round two – latest polling – politicalbetting.com

1457910

Comments

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,212
    edited March 2022
    HYUFD said:

    2) We may well have done. Any UK PM who rules out the use of our nuclear weapons as a last resort to defend the UK or British territory if invaded and defence by conventional forces fails is not tough enough for the job.

    Thatcher certainly would not have done. Indeed we would be more likely to use them against a non-nuclear armed invading country as they could not respond with a nuclear weapon against us themselves. Pure realpolitik
    These are strategic nuclear weapons - I don't know what the payload is, but we are talking world changing destruction. Nobody would do that to defend or attack in a conventional war. If you want the British PM to be armed with a range of nuclear options, that's fine, but that means you need to argue for a range of tactical nuclear warheads and delivery options, either in addition to, or instead of Trident. Both of which have arguments for and against. But don't pretend Trident is it.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,274
    Reuters says the ex-hostages have left Iran. Doesn't say where they are heading.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792

    Well, "not necessarily nailed on" is a vast improvement from the "Labour has no chance of winning the GE" that I was reading from most Tories just six months ago.
    Yes, particular from, AveIt/LondonPubman – one of the most partisan and biased Tories on PB.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,882

    From this Labourite:

    1) Corbyn's response to the Salisbury attack was dreadful, we all know that.
    2) Bringing up Corbyn in response to today's issues about Ukraine, Iran and so forth is a complete red herring, and smacks of desperation. Starmer is leader now, and he's clearly very different.
    Labour are (rightly) going on about the PMs and the Conservative Party's links to Russia. Why is it wrong to point out that the Labour Party's previous leader was (ahem) rather friendly towards Russia, and in denial over their culpability for a hideous attack on our own soil?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,882

    From this Labourite:

    1) Corbyn's response to the Salisbury attack was dreadful, we all know that.
    2) Bringing up Corbyn in response to today's issues about Ukraine, Iran and so forth is a complete red herring, and smacks of desperation. Starmer is leader now, and he's clearly very different.
    Starmer was in Corbyn's shadow cabinet at the time of Salisbury. wasn't he?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,317
    HYUFD said:

    We were not using them to attack Argentina with.

    It was Argentina's decision to invade the Falklands knowing full well we were a nuclear power with nuclear weapons.

    Had we not won with conventional forces then by their invasion Argentina risked a nuclear missile attack launched by a British submarine on Argentina. That was the risk they took by the invasion, nuclear weapons being our weapon of last resort to defend British territory (which includes the Falklands)
    You do realise that everyone can read this thread and see your original posts where you comment on it being easy don't you? Trying to twist and turn by changing the subject is obvious to everyone.

    We were never going to use nukes. We didn't even attack Argentina other than sabotage attempts on planes. We also restricted attacks on shipping to the exclusion zone, hence the issues that arise over the Belgrano.

    We had one objective to win back the Falklands, nothing else and your comments saying it was easy and not difficult (see above) is ignorant and insulting to the service men involved. The fact you can not bring yourself to apologize for this is appalling. I would like to see you say that to their face.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,724

    I am very much a layman, and I think you might have missed a word after 'we're', so I don't really understand your point.
    Sorry, ducking autocorrect! I never know why it prefers “we’re” to “were”.

    Should read “they were”. Basically we forced them to act as carriers by the 90s because we didn’t need so much anti sun activity in the North Atlantic, but the size of deck is what limits sortie rates, and it frustrated us, which is why we went bigger on the replacements. And there’s the old maxim that fresh air is free and steel is cheap, so going a bit bigger doesn’t cost as much as you might think.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,927

    Interesting thread on hit to RU economy which is highly linked with rest of globe. Mass unemployment and crisis.


    https://twitter.com/IlyaMatveev_/status/1503789373069877248


    "All in all, no other economy in the world has experienced anything like this – extreme de-globalization in a matter of days."

    "...the elimination of at least half of the middle class."

    Interesting that he makes the same guesstimate as the IMF. A 30% fall in Russia’s GDP. More than the entire Great Depression in the USA (-28%) slightly less than the negative impact of the First World War in Belgium (-32%)

    Putin has inflicted all of that, in one year, on his own country

    It is the most stupefyingly colossal blunder. Hard to think of anything similar

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063
    darkage said:

    Do I take it from the lack of commentry that people have reassessed their optimism about Ukraine?

    Obviously I hate to be pessimistic but it looks to me like the Russians are slowly (and clumsily) pounding the country to obliteration whilst arranging for a 'peace' deal that humiliates Ukraine. No NATO. 'Neutralisation'. Loss of parts of the country that have already been invaded by Russia. It is 'finlandisation', but by force and not by consent and mutual respect.

    I can't see such an arrangement working out well - not least because many people in Ukraine won't be happy about it. There is the small matter of the 2000 or so Azov fascists, who we have inadvertantly armed, who are likely to turn against the Ukranian government. So the destablisation of Ukraine will continue apace.

    Zelensky and co effectively have no choice other than to agree to whatever they are being presented with. Putin can just move his troops up to the border with, Georgia, Finland or whoever is next on his list. The west can go back to its comfortable decadence and denial.

    Am I wrong?

    I hope so. But in darker moments it is hard to see a way out of this which doesn't give in to lots of Russian demands, and 'neutrality' (a major misnomer here) would be a massive one, essentially giving up foreign policy independence.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,585
    edited March 2022

    It is bemusing how many people here simultaneously seem to think that it is reasonable for the Iranians to hold hostages until an entirely unrelated debt gets settled, and that somehow what a British Minister said in response to their hostage taking is the reason the hostages were being held.

    The only people responsible for the Iranians taking hostages are the Iranians.

    Paragraph one is your false narrative. Paragraph 2 is correct. These are the facts:

    We owed the Iranian's a debt from the days of the Shah.

    The Iranians unacceptably used dual nationality hostages to recover the debt.

    A previous FS did not read his brief and suggested a hostage was working for Reuters. The Iranians cynically used this foolishness to bolster their position.

    We need Iranian oil so we repaid the debt.

    The hostages were released.

    HMG have done the right thing, we have not paid a ransom, we have repaid a debt, A former FS nonetheless dropped a massive ******* back in 2017.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,173
    Lavrov says that most countries in the world support Russia, but are not able to withstand pressure from the US. 🤣
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,724
    HYUFD said:

    2) We may well have done. Any UK PM who rules out the use of our nuclear weapons as a last resort to defend the UK or British territory if invaded and defence by conventional forces fails is not tough enough for the job.

    Thatcher certainly would not have done. Indeed we would be more likely to use them against a non-nuclear armed invading country as they could not respond with a nuclear weapon against us themselves. Pure realpolitik
    Oh god, you really mean it.

    Thankfully, actual British policy on the use of the deterrent is very different.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,022

    Russia should do it. You break it, you pay for it.
    Those frozen foreign currency reserves could certainly come in handy.

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    biggles said:

    Sorry, ducking autocorrect! I never know why it prefers “we’re” to “were”.

    Should read “they were”. Basically we forced them to act as carriers by the 90s because we didn’t need so much anti sun activity in the North Atlantic, but the size of deck is what limits sortie rates, and it frustrated us, which is why we went bigger on the replacements. And there’s the old maxim that fresh air is free and steel is cheap, so going a bit bigger doesn’t cost as much as you might think.
    "ducking autocorrect" is sublime.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,476

    If you describe it as realpolitik and so easy to defend like that yes, Leon, that is a true description of what is happening, the point is Malmesbury wasn’t, he was saying, like Jeremy Hunt has been saying, it’s just an honest late paid bill no strings attached, certainly not a ransom.

    So you and I agree, it can’t be described as Malmesbury did because it sounds laughable in the face of the realpolitik? Agreed?

    Now to take your ludicrous realpolitik win win win win nonsense apart. The strongest maxim to follow for a truly ethical foreign policy is, if you are friend of the bastard doing bad things, then you are the bastard doing bad things too.

    So what to do when you need the oil, yet oil supplies are in the hands of the bastards? As the Iranians said in their communique to Putin, we have new friends, and our new friends say hard cheese to you.
    It's sort of a ransom - but its their money. The hold up in paying was because we don't like their government and they don't like us.

    There's tons of stuff like this in international relations - sums frozen between enemies. I'm pretty sure there is some US/Cuban stuff, for example.

    One chap made a mint at the end of the Cold War. He collected the certificates for Imperial Russian Government bonds. After the revolution, the Bolsheviks defaulted on them. People bought them because the looked pretty.

    As part of Russia rejoining the international community, they honoured the bonds. Inflation had meant that millions which were awesome in 1910 were trivial in 199X. But for the chap actually owning them....
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    kjh said:

    You do realise that everyone can read this thread and see your original posts where you comment on it being easy don't you? Trying to twist and turn by changing the subject is obvious to everyone.

    We were never going to use nukes. We didn't even attack Argentina other than sabotage attempts on planes. We also restricted attacks on shipping to the exclusion zone, hence the issues that arise over the Belgrano.

    We had one objective to win back the Falklands, nothing else and your comments saying it was easy and not difficult (see above) is ignorant and insulting to the service men involved. The fact you can not bring yourself to apologize for this is appalling. I would like to see you say that to their face.
    Just remembering my father (an ex RN man) watching the news at the time. He was completely shaken by the news, especially when the Argentinians started sinking ships.

    It was arguably only a few dodgy bomb fuzes that were the margin between vicxtory and defeat - or indeed other elements, such as the sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor in mistake for a through-deck cruiser.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,212
    edited March 2022
    biggles said:

    Sorry, ducking autocorrect! I never know why it prefers “we’re” to “were”.

    Should read “they were”. Basically we forced them to act as carriers by the 90s because we didn’t need so much anti sun activity in the North Atlantic, but the size of deck is what limits sortie rates, and it frustrated us, which is why we went bigger on the replacements. And there’s the old maxim that fresh air is free and steel is cheap, so going a bit bigger doesn’t cost as much as you might think.
    Could sortie rates be improved by part two of my cunning plan, to bring back the Harriers? :lol:

    *Gets coat*
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,724

    Paragraph one is your false narrative. Paragraph 2 is correct. These are the facts:

    We owed the Iranian's a debt from the days of the Shah.

    The Iranians unacceptably used dual nationality hostages to recover the debt.

    A previous FS did not read his brief and suggested a hostage was working for Reuters. The Iranians cynically used this foolishness to bolster their position.

    We need Iranian oil so we repaid the debt.

    The hostages were released.

    HMG have done the right thing, we have not paid a ransom, we have repaid a debt, A former FS nonetheless dropped a massive ******* back in 2017.
    Indeed. Whatever became of him?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292
    edited March 2022
    kjh said:

    You do realise that everyone can read this thread and see your original posts where you comment on it being easy don't you? Trying to twist and turn by changing the subject is obvious to everyone.

    We were never going to use nukes. We didn't even attack Argentina other than sabotage attempts on planes. We also restricted attacks on shipping to the exclusion zone, hence the issues that arise over the Belgrano.

    We had one objective to win back the Falklands, nothing else and your comments saying it was easy and not difficult (see above) is ignorant and insulting to the service men involved. The fact you can not bring yourself to apologize for this is appalling. I would like to see you say that to their face.
    Yes, my original post (which you have still not bothered to find) made at 8 32 am this morning.

    'No she wouldn't, Thatcher was a realist about what the UK could do militarily.

    She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. However she never threatened the USSR militarily and she agreed to stick to the Hong Kong handover to China as she knew we could not beat them militarily either'

    How do you know we were never going to use nukes? You were not Thatcher, you were a wet SDP Liberal I expect at the time.

    We never needed to try as we won the war with conventional forces and without going too far beyond the Falklands and surrounding area.

    Had we not won the war with conventional forces anything would have been on the table to defend British territory and that has zero to do with the sacrifices of our forces in the war
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,695
    Leon said:

    Interesting that he makes the same guesstimate as the IMF. A 30% fall in Russia’s GDP. More than the entire Great Depression in the USA (-28%) slightly less than the negative impact of the First World War in Belgium (-32%)

    Putin has inflicted all of that, in one year, on his own country

    It is the most stupefyingly colossal blunder. Hard to think of anything similar

    Well, he wanted history to remember him.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,173
    Russia’s biggest carmaker AvtoVAZ is sending all its employees on a “20-day leave” amidst a shortage of deliveries of electronic components.

    https://twitter.com/bbcwillvernon/status/1504057954701561857
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063
    Leon said:

    Ukraine is vast and poor and will need much rebuilding (IF there is peace now, a big IF). EU membership is 10-20 years away; or more
    Probably, but being a candidate and actively working towards it with a great deal of EU backing (unlike some other candidates who no longer give a crap about it) would still be significant in near permanently affixing them to the West.

    NATO was never going to happen whilst occupied, not in the 21st century, but the EU could be managed better. Russia have been very clear they do not want that, but it is one of their most unreasonable demands (and that is saying something) and simply cannot be accepted I'd think - this whole business started over EU aspirations, and there's no pretext which makes it ok to prevent Ukraine from joining political blocs, especially when Russia is already bordered by other members (also applies to NATO, but easier to slip on that one)
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,968
    Taz said:

    We shouldn't have withheld their money in the first place.
    We should have supported both regimes - the Shah and the one who over threw him? Or put another way, we tried to get him tanks to kill the people who over throw him, you reckon we should give The money back to the people who over through him in first place?
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,022

    Lavrov says that most countries in the world support Russia, but are not able to withstand pressure from the US. 🤣

    So what's he saying then? Russia is an impotent nation not a great bear but a piddling pussycat.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292
    biggles said:

    Oh god, you really mean it.

    Thankfully, actual British policy on the use of the deterrent is very different.
    No it isn't. We have nuclear weapons to defend the UK and British territory as a last resort, the Falkland Islands are and were British overseas territory
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,929
    Ever heard of "Westplaining"? I hadn't, but here's a fascinating thread from George Monbiot, an unusually free-thinking Lefty.

    https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1503758826461409287

    "We need to talk about #Westplaining.
    "It’s a term coined by the Eastern European left to describe a tendency of certain Western leftists to ascribe everything that happens east of Germany to Western policy."
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,212
    What is great to think, is that when as seems imminent, this conflict finishes, Russian oil and gas will hopefully be dirt cheap and they will need to sell as much as possible to fill the coffers, the Saudis will be pumping away too, and we'll have hopefully put a lot of useful new renewable capacity in too.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063

    From this Labourite:

    1) Corbyn's response to the Salisbury attack was dreadful, we all know that.
    2) Bringing up Corbyn in response to today's issues about Ukraine, Iran and so forth is a complete red herring, and smacks of desperation. Starmer is leader now, and he's clearly very different.
    Yes, its fair enough to bring up when Corbyn tries grandstanding, and even as a general 'what if' perhaps, but it's very clear Starmer's approach is not the same so belabouring that point won't work.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,724

    Could sortie rates be improved by part two of my cunning plan, to bring back the Harriers? :lol:

    *Gets coat*
    Lol. The F35 launches much like they did at takeoff weight. It literally become a maths problem. It takes X minutes to launch a plane, and Y to first get it into position. You also need to recover ones you previously launched and manoeuvre them somewhere to park. Space just makes the choreography a bit easier, especially in a war scenario where you’ve overloaded it and everyone is tired.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292

    These are strategic nuclear weapons - I don't know what the payload is, but we are talking world changing destruction. Nobody would do that to defend or attack in a conventional war. If you want the British PM to be armed with a range of nuclear options, that's fine, but that means you need to argue for a range of tactical nuclear warheads and delivery options, either in addition to, or instead of Trident. Both of which have arguments for and against. But don't pretend Trident is it.
    In 1982 we had Polaris, not Trident.

    Though the Argentine military is weaker now
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,476
    edited March 2022

    Could sortie rates be improved by part two of my cunning plan, to bring back the Harriers? :lol:

    *Gets coat*
    The Harriers had next to no electric warfare capability, a very small payload and short range. 1982 only worked because the Argentines had worse air-to-air capability.

    By the 90s it was clear that Sea Harrier vs Mig29/Su27 would be a very bad thing.

    So you need an aircraft with more payload, more space and power for electronics, more space for weapons....

    Hell, the original idea was that the Kestrel would lead to a "proper" aircraft

    image
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,585
    biggles said:

    Indeed. Whatever became of him?
    Banished to obscurity hopefully.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,821
    Carnyx said:

    Just remembering my father (an ex RN man) watching the news at the time. He was completely shaken by the news, especially when the Argentinians started sinking ships.

    It was arguably only a few dodgy bomb fuzes that were the margin between vicxtory and defeat - or indeed other elements, such as the sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor in mistake for a through-deck cruiser.
    IIRC weren't we almost out of ammo and supplies too? That they surrendered when they did rather than defend Stanley was the decisive factor.
    We could have lost.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,274
    HYUFD said:

    Yes, my original post (which you have still not bothered to find) made at 8 32 am this morning.

    'No she wouldn't, Thatcher was a realist about what the UK could do militarily.

    She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. However she never threatened the USSR militarily and she agreed to stick to the Hong Kong handover to China as she knew we could not beat them militarily either'

    How do you know we were never going to use nukes? You were not Thatcher, you were a wet SDP Liberal I expect at the time.

    We never needed to try as we won the war with conventional forces and without going too far beyond the Falklands and surrounding area.

    Had we not won the war with conventional forces anything would have been on the table to defend British territory and that has zero to do with the sacrifices of our forces in the war
    I think Reagan and the US Govt would have had quite a lot to say if nuclear weapons had got anywhere near being used.
    And none of it would have been supportive. The US is very touchy about what happens in what it considers it's backyard.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063

    Pre revolution (1979) we were selling the Shah 1500 tanks. We delivered a couple of hundred. The cash is the balance.

    After the revolution Iran was all "Death to the West!" - so the money sat in a bank account. Then there was Salman Rushdie and a bunch of financing terrorism around the world.

    There is/was a similar situation with the US having a similar debt.
    Revolutions and ideologies are all very well and good, but the prospect of giving up cold hard cash makes people much less willing to break with every element of a regime they overthrew.
  • Starmer was in Corbyn's shadow cabinet at the time of Salisbury. wasn't he?
    And Ange. And they both stayed there in full throated support until the bitter end.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292
    Carnyx said:

    She wouldn't have been PM any more, after the kind of conventional defeat that she was risking.

    Hence had she faced loss of a conventional war by our conventional forces, which fortunately she did not, you cannot rule out she would have given Argentina 48 hours to withdraw from the Falklands or ordered a British submarine to launch a Polaris nuclear missile on a military base in Argentina
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,031
    Scott_xP said:

    Reported fury in Kremlin after China's Ambassador to Ukraine congratulated them for their resistance yesterday, and vowed economic support to rebuild country.
    https://twitter.com/AnneliseBorges/status/1504068684284837889

    "We'll be flush with cash, once we buy everything on the Moscow Stock Exchange at an 80% price reduction to its true value", he might have added.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,476

    We should have supported both regimes - the Shah and the one who over threw him? Or put another way, we tried to get him tanks to kill the people who over throw him, you reckon we should give The money back to the people who over through him in first place?
    Some people find it a bit hard to give money to people who are screaming "Death to You!" non stop.....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063

    It is bemusing how many people here simultaneously seem to think that it is reasonable for the Iranians to hold hostages until an entirely unrelated debt gets settled, and that somehow what a British Minister said in response to their hostage taking is the reason the hostages were being held.

    The only people responsible for the Iranians taking hostages are the Iranians.

    It's true, and its state piracy (and pretty blatantly too). In international relations to do whatever you feel you can get away with, as recent events have demonstrated, so we can but hope that we don't have too many other threads like this that awful regimes can exploit.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063

    Labour are (rightly) going on about the PMs and the Conservative Party's links to Russia. Why is it wrong to point out that the Labour Party's previous leader was (ahem) rather friendly towards Russia, and in denial over their culpability for a hideous attack on our own soil?
    How current those matters are is relevant, and so a line between mentioning and relying desperately on and overdoing it.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).

    It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,695

    "We'll be flush with cash, once we buy everything on the Moscow Stock Exchange at an 80% price reduction to its true value", he might have added.
    Only if it ever opens again.
  • Some people can handle nuance shocker. An aggressive desire to shut down what are incorrectly perceived to be "unpatriotic" opinions is a rare downside of this site.

    The following can all be true.

    Iran is responsible for taking hostages.
    Boris was irresponsible for his words.
    The UKs withholding Irans cash is not clear cut, or at least has not been throughout its 40+ year history.

    Posters mentioning the second two points should be allowed to do so, without being accused of denying the first.

    That's not nuance. This comes back to the earlier linguistics conversation, context matters.

    If you are bringing up the second points in isolation then absolutely that's OK. If you're bringing up the latter as a justification/reason for Iran taking hostages, then its unmitigated bullshit.

    Its like saying in response to someone being raped "but they were wearing a short skirt" "oh and they were drunk".
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,724
    HYUFD said:

    No it isn't. We have nuclear weapons to defend the UK and British territory as a last resort, the Falkland Islands are and were British overseas territory
    You’re never going to be allowed anywhere near a decision making role. However if someone mad enough did that take view in Government, and threatened to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state, then large parts of MOD and the FCO would resign in protest rather than act on those orders. I’m far from sure a sub captain would obey the order to launch.

    If we launched, or went around threatening to, then he US and NATO would drop us, and we’d (rightly) be an international pariah.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,968

    It's sort of a ransom - but its their money. The hold up in paying was because we don't like their government and they don't like us.

    There's tons of stuff like this in international relations - sums frozen between enemies. I'm pretty sure there is some US/Cuban stuff, for example.

    One chap made a mint at the end of the Cold War. He collected the certificates for Imperial Russian Government bonds. After the revolution, the Bolsheviks defaulted on them. People bought them because the looked pretty.

    As part of Russia rejoining the international community, they honoured the bonds. Inflation had meant that millions which were awesome in 1910 were trivial in 199X. But for the chap actually owning them....
    “ It's sort of a ransom “. I’m glad we’ve talked you round into admitting bloody obvious. But that’s really interesting what you shared about defaulted debt, because any second history is about to repeat itself. Buying Russian debt may be a great business idea right now?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,927
    edited March 2022
    We made tactical peace with Stalin so as to defeat Hitler. Dealing with Iran to thwart Putin is small beer by comparison

    It does sound like peace is near. Hard to believe given the horrors of these weeks. Please let it be so

    If peace arrives - if if if - it’s difficult to see Putin surviving in the medium term
  • The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).

    It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.

    It's politics
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).

    It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.

    As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,724
    HYUFD said:

    In 1982 we had Polaris, not Trident.

    Though the Argentine military is weaker now
    His point was even more true of Polaris than Trident…
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,695

    Russia’s biggest carmaker AvtoVAZ is sending all its employees on a “20-day leave” amidst a shortage of deliveries of electronic components.

    https://twitter.com/bbcwillvernon/status/1504057954701561857

    Just the beginning of the total cratering of RU economy.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063
    edited March 2022

    Ever heard of "Westplaining"? I hadn't, but here's a fascinating thread from George Monbiot, an unusually free-thinking Lefty.

    https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1503758826461409287

    "We need to talk about #Westplaining.
    "It’s a term coined by the Eastern European left to describe a tendency of certain Western leftists to ascribe everything that happens east of Germany to Western policy."

    Works much wider than that (and not merely from leftists). There's a lot of infantilising commentary around the ME putting everything that occurs there down to Iraq and Post WW1 boundary drawing, which are certainly very significant but cannot be said to make up the entirety of historic tensions in the region which go back a long long way, or entirely remove agency of local participants.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,317
    HYUFD said:

    We were not using them to attack Argentina with.

    It was Argentina's decision to invade the Falklands knowing full well we were a nuclear power with nuclear weapons.

    Had we not won with conventional forces then by their invasion Argentina risked a nuclear missile attack launched by a British submarine on Argentina. That was the risk they took by the invasion, nuclear weapons being our weapon of last resort to defend British territory (which includes the Falklands)
    I'm no expert in this and it is irrelevant anyway because #hyufd is clearly bonkers in thinking we would nuke Argentina, but would it even have been possible then to do so from a sub to an unexpected target. And if possible has @HYUFD considered what Russia, China, USA would have done if we randomly fired an ICBM towards the Americas. I mine possible global destruction over a little lightly populated island.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792

    It's politics
    Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
  • pingping Posts: 3,805

    It's politics
    That they think it is their strongest card speaks to the weakness of the current Tory party attack lines.

    Next election is labours to lose, imo.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292
    edited March 2022
    biggles said:

    You’re never going to be allowed anywhere near a decision making role. However if someone mad enough did that take view in Government, and threatened to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state, then large parts of MOD and the FCO would resign in protest rather than act on those orders. I’m far from sure a sub captain would obey the order to launch.

    If we launched, or went around threatening to, then he US and NATO would drop us, and we’d (rightly) be an international pariah.
    Actually every PM writes a letter of last resort already (which could including wiping out as much of the country which has attacked us using our nuclear weapons).

    The PM has the authority to take the final decision to defend our nation and its territories, if some civil servants are too wet and weak to do that fine, they can be replaced.

    Sub captains also have no alternative but to obey the orders of the PM and government of the day or be dismissed and replaced by the next in command.

    The US and NATO alliance is ultimately there to defend us, if they are unwilling to support us in defence of our overseas territories then the alliance is ended anyway
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    Sandpit said:

    As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
    Is that a particularly common occurrence on PB? I haven't seen it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063
    Sandpit said:

    As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
    People overdo both (and the creepy Tory obsession with Thatcher too, though it may be my imagination but it feels like people are starting to dial both down), but Corbyn was Leader only 2 and a bit years ago - it doesn't mean Tories don't fallback on the 'But Corbyn' line too often as a distraction, they clearly do, but it is more likely to be relevant from time to time at least.
  • Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
    What's flesh-crawling is that so many were willing to vote for Corbyn's Labour - and most of the current Shadow Cabinet including its current Leader were happy to be in Corbyn's Cabinet and put Corbyn forward for being Prime Minister. That raises serious question marks over everyone who served in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet.

    Had enough of the public not had the good sense to vote against them, then Corbyn would be Prime Minister today.
  • agingjb2agingjb2 Posts: 122
    If the UK had used a nuclear strike against Argentina, then Argentina would probably have surrendered immediately. The UK would have, also immediately, and permanently, then lost every friend worth having.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617

    The Harriers had next to no electric warfare capability, a very small payload and short range. 1982 only worked because the Argentines had worse air-to-air capability.

    By the 90s it was clear that Sea Harrier vs Mig29/Su27 would be a very bad thing.

    So you need an aircraft with more payload, more space and power for electronics, more space for weapons....

    Hell, the original idea was that the Kestrel would lead to a "proper" aircraft

    image
    Awwwwww ... plenum chamber reheat ... I can remember the headlines when the 1154(RN) was scrapped ...
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    Leon said:

    We made tactical peace with Stalin so as to defeat Hitler. Dealing with Iran to thwart Putin is small beer by comparison

    It does sound like peace is near. Hard to believe given the horrors of these weeks. Please let it be so

    If peace arrives - if if if - it’s difficult to see Putin surviving in the medium term


    Only you could post at 9am that your friends are "preparing" for all-out nuclear apocalypse, then declare "peace is near" by lunchtime.

  • Russian reinforcements leaving Georgia.

    Liveuamap
    @Liveuamap
    Confirmed: Russian units from the 4th Guards occupation base in Tskhinvali are leaving the region through the Roki tunnel and heading to fight in Ukraine. https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/16-march-confirmed-russian-units-from-the-4th-guards-occupation via
    @visionergeo
    #Ukraine #Georgia
    https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1504058528188743687
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,724
    kjh said:

    I'm no expert in this and it is irrelevant anyway because #hyufd is clearly bonkers in thinking we would nuke Argentina, but would it even have been possible then to do so from a sub to an unexpected target. And if possible has @HYUFD considered what Russia, China, USA would have done if we randomly fired an ICBM towards the Americas. I mine possible global destruction over a little lightly populated island.
    Possible? Yes. Wise or ever on the table? No, for all the reasons you and many of us have said.

    Oh and one more. In 1982 there were WWII veterans in Government and senior military roles. The chances of them supporting delivering a nuclear attack in this way? Zero.
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,920

    We should have supported both regimes - the Shah and the one who over threw him? Or put another way, we tried to get him tanks to kill the people who over throw him, you reckon we should give The money back to the people who over through him in first place?
    We owed the money we should have repaid it. There have been plenty of times in the intervening time period where Iran has been far more benign than it was after the revolution. A revolution that threw off one grubby exploitative regime and replaced it with another.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,476
    Carnyx said:

    Awwwwww ... plenum chamber reheat ... I can remember the headlines when the 1154(RN) was scrapped ...
    Another brilliant British invention that had a slight problem - it didn't work.

    What could possibly go wrong with running a afterburner against both sides of the fuselage of an aircraft made of aluminium?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292
    kjh said:

    I'm no expert in this and it is irrelevant anyway because #hyufd is clearly bonkers in thinking we would nuke Argentina, but would it even have been possible then to do so from a sub to an unexpected target. And if possible has @HYUFD considered what Russia, China, USA would have done if we randomly fired an ICBM towards the Americas. I mine possible global destruction over a little lightly populated island.
    The Falklands is not merely 'a lightly populated island' it is British overseas territory to be defended at all costs
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,714
    edited March 2022
    Sandpit said:

    As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
    Yes, rather similar. It wasn't a winning strategy for Labour to keep bringing up Thatcher. And it won't be a winning strategy for the Tories to keep bringing up Corbyn. Even less so, actually, as at least Thatcher held power whereas Corbyn didn't.
  • Taz said:

    We owed the money we should have repaid it. There have been plenty of times in the intervening time period where Iran has been far more benign than it was after the revolution. A revolution that threw off one grubby exploitative regime and replaced it with another.
    There has never been a time period under the Ayatollahs were it would have been appropriate to lift all sanctions.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    kle4 said:

    People overdo both (and the creepy Tory obsession with Thatcher too, though it may be my imagination but it feels like people are starting to dial both down), but Corbyn was Leader only 2 and a bit years ago - it doesn't mean Tories don't fallback on the 'But Corbyn' line too often as a distraction, they clearly do, but it is more likely to be relevant from time to time at least.
    Corbo isn't even a Labour MP FFS.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180

    The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).

    It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.

    Stop. Just because you're embarrassed by the Corbyn years doesn't change the fact they happened and that Keir Starmer et al were front and centre in support. What you call 'weird', 'dangerous obsession', etc normal folk call politics.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063

    Ever heard of "Westplaining"? I hadn't, but here's a fascinating thread from George Monbiot, an unusually free-thinking Lefty.

    https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1503758826461409287

    "We need to talk about #Westplaining.
    "It’s a term coined by the Eastern European left to describe a tendency of certain Western leftists to ascribe everything that happens east of Germany to Western policy."

    Yup

    Do Westplainers really think they know something that the Kremlin doesn’t? That after a couple of hours googling, they've seen into the dark heart of Western strategy, and the Russian government hasn’t? That Putin is being led blindly into a trap they have spotted and he hasn't?

    This story suits Putin very well, and he tells a cynical version of it himself: I was provoked, I had no choice, Russia is encircled by NATO and has to strike back. It is used to disguise a highly aggressive, imperialist strategy of his own

    It’s notable that some of those who treat him as a mindless victim of Western scheming are also happy to recite blatant Kremlin propaganda, for example grossly overemphasising the influence of Ukrainian fascists, and describing the 2014 revolution as a “US coup”.


    Or indeed, that 'neturality' at the point of a gun is a reasonable and essentially harmless demand, rather than, at best, a deeply regrettable and humiliating concession from Ukraine if it must be granted, as it would mean they have been abandoned.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,821

    We should have supported both regimes - the Shah and the one who over threw him? Or put another way, we tried to get him tanks to kill the people who over throw him, you reckon we should give The money back to the people who over through him in first place?
    We already have done.
    And yes. If someone pays me for something and I don't deliver I repay with interest. Not to do so is fraud or theft.
    Even if the original person has died, or the company has been taken over by a completely different owner.
  • Corbo isn't even a Labour MP FFS.
    And yet the current Leader and Deputy Leader had such atrociously appalling judgment that its there but for the good sense of the British electorate that they wanted Corbyn to be our Prime Minister right now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292
    biggles said:

    Possible? Yes. Wise or ever on the table? No, for all the reasons you and many of us have said.

    Oh and one more. In 1982 there were WWII veterans in Government and senior military roles. The chances of them supporting delivering a nuclear attack in this way? Zero.
    The US launched an atomic bomb to end WW2 in Japan against a non nuclear armed nation, it delivered the desired result
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,212

    The Harriers had next to no electric warfare capability, a very small payload and short range. 1982 only worked because the Argentines had worse air-to-air capability.

    By the 90s it was clear that Sea Harrier vs Mig29/Su27 would be a very bad thing.

    So you need an aircraft with more payload, more space and power for electronics, more space for weapons....

    Hell, the original idea was that the Kestrel would lead to a "proper" aircraft

    image
    It wasn't an entirely serious idea, but what an aircraft!
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,724
    edited March 2022
    HYUFD said:

    Actually every PM writes a letter of last resort already (which could including wiping out as much of the country which has attacked us using our nuclear weapons).

    The PM has the authority to take the final decision to defend our nation and its territories, if some civil servants are too wet and weak to do that fine, they can be replaced.

    Sub captains also have no alternative but to obey the orders of the PM and government of the day or be dismissed and replaced by the next in command.

    The US and NATO alliance is ultimately there to defend us, if they are unwilling to support us in defence of our overseas territories then the alliance is ended anyway
    I give up. You’re bonkers.

    How is the letter of last resort relevant to a Falklands invasion? Have you ever met a bomber crew? Have you read the NATO treaty? First clue is in the “NA” bit.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,927
    edited March 2022


    Only you could post at 9am that your friends are "preparing" for all-out nuclear apocalypse, then declare "peace is near" by lunchtime.

    Lol. Fair

    In my defence I’m 36 hours into a hard fast. I need a new idea for a basalt sex toy and I find that fasting speeds the creative brain

    Unfortunately that same speeding means my moods cycle even more rapidly than usual

    Tune in again at teatime when I’ll be predicting Totes Armageddon
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,882

    Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
    It's not an infatuation. He was leader of the Labour party just three years ago. He still has a large following in the Labour party. The Conservative Party has issues it needs to sort out; so does the Labour Party. Thankfully Starmer is making a good start.

    (As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    Sandpit said:

    As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
    Angie would love to dig her up and burn her at the stake! It narks them that she achieved what none of them have got near in the 'Peoples' party'.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063
    edited March 2022

    Corbo isn't even a Labour MP FFS.
    Right - a highly relevant factor when people seek to imply Starmer and co must be the same as him because they served under him. But that doesn't mean any mention of them backing him is always unreasonable, it was very recent. It just cannot be pretended things have not moved on which counter that point, so it cannot be relied upon as a get of jail free card.

    It's not very relevant, but nor is it entirely irrelevant. It's like how Godwin's law doesn't mean you can never bring up Nazis.
  • HYUFD said:

    The US launched an atomic bomb to end WW2 in Japan against a non nuclear armed nation, it delivered the desired result
    A World War, yes.

    Not a small localised conventional war.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    Russian reinforcements leaving Georgia.

    Liveuamap
    @Liveuamap
    Confirmed: Russian units from the 4th Guards occupation base in Tskhinvali are leaving the region through the Roki tunnel and heading to fight in Ukraine. https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/16-march-confirmed-russian-units-from-the-4th-guards-occupation via
    @visionergeo
    #Ukraine #Georgia
    https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1504058528188743687

    That’s a nice tunnel they have there. Would be a shame if anything happened to it….
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063


    Only you could post at 9am that your friends are "preparing" for all-out nuclear apocalypse, then declare "peace is near" by lunchtime.

    True, surprised the second wasn't 9.15am.
  • Corbo isn't even a Labour MP FFS.
    But the Labour leader and his deputy were in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet less than two years ago. It's hardly ancient history!
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,968
    edited March 2022
    Leon said:

    We made tactical peace with Stalin so as to defeat Hitler. Dealing with Iran to thwart Putin is small beer by comparison

    It does sound like peace is near. Hard to believe given the horrors of these weeks. Please let it be so

    If peace arrives - if if if - it’s hard to see Putin surviving in the medium term

    In your eyes, and the big majority of posters on here today, our new best buddies the Iranians have never did no harm? What are they now, the Dukes of Hazard?

    Are we not missing the lesson to be learnt, just shrugging and excusing reactionary policy as realpolitik?

    But your post actually sums up beautifully why Boris could be being reactionary and stupid and making mistakes - if Putin is replaced by a better government, the one who opposed this war, our buying Russian gas and oil is the win win win win scenario you errantly mentioned. Are we at war with the Russian people after Putin is gone, at war with those who opposed him, or supporting them and making their government a success?

    Yes. Yes of course we will remain at war with them, friends with our new Iranian allies and at war with the post Putin Russia is exactly the ideological position of Boris’ government as of today.

    The lesson for today is, If you are so happy to support the bad guys in this world doing bad things, you have to be happy being the bastard doing bad things too.
  • It's not an infatuation. He was leader of the Labour party just three years ago. He still has a large following in the Labour party. The Conservative Party has issues it needs to sort out; so does the Labour Party. Thankfully Starmer is making a good start.

    (As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
    Less than 2 years. He was leader until 4 April 2020.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,317
    Sandpit said:

    As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
    Hardly equivalent! Thatcher was in power for 11 years, Corbyn for not a single day. Also Thatcher held considerable sway over the Tory Party for long after she'd gone. Corbyn and its associated 'ism' has been utterly cancelled by Starmer's Labour.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,317
    HYUFD said:

    The Falklands is not merely 'a lightly populated island' it is British overseas territory to be defended at all costs
    And at no point did I say we shouldn't. However I do draw the line at starting WW3 over it by nuking people.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,031
    HYUFD said:

    The US launched an atomic bomb to end WW2 in Japan against a non nuclear armed nation, it delivered the desired result
    If we had nuked even an Argentinian base manned by three guys and a penguin, we would have been the most reviled nation on Earth.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,476

    It wasn't an entirely serious idea, but what an aircraft!
    They'd built a fair bit of several prototypes before it got cancelled IIRC.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,724
    HYUFD said:

    The US launched an atomic bomb to end WW2 in Japan against a non nuclear armed nation, it delivered the desired result
    You don’t see why that’s different do you?
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,714
    Quite an amusing question from Matt Western (Labour) at PMQs to Raab about the PM's friendships:

    Could you ask the PM what first attracted him to the billionaire xxxx? (I didn't catch the name of the specific Russian oligarch cited).
  • In your eyes, and the big majority of posters on here today, our new best buddies the Iranians have never did no harm? What are they now, the Dukes of Hazard?

    Are we not missing the lesson to be learnt, just shrugging and excusing reactionary policy as realpolitik?

    But your post actually sums up beautifully why Boris could be being reactionary and stupid and making mistakes - if Putin is replaced by a better government, the one who opposed this war, our buying Russian gas and oil is the win win win win scenario you errantly mentioned. Are we at war with the Russian people after Putin is gone, at war with those who opposed him, or supporting them and making their government a success?

    Yes. Yes of course we will remain at war with them, friends with our new Iranian allies and at war with the post Putin Russia is exactly the position of Boris’ government as of today.

    The lesson for today is, If you are so happy to support the bad guys in this world doing bad things, you have to be happy being the bastard doing bad things too.
    That's utter garbage.

    No of course we will not remain the same thing indefinitely. Churchill and Stalin is a good example, as he said If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.

    Hitler was the greater evil in World War II, but once the War ended Churchill and the West didn't simply remain good friends and allies with Stalin. Even before he returned as PM, Churchill was immediately warning the West about the threats of the Soviet Union. Once the 'greater evil' was dealt with, our erstwhile allies became our greater evil themselves.

    Realpolitik means dealing with the Iranians today because Putin is the greater evil, but once Putin is gone, we will have to deal with the world as it is then, not the world as it is today.

    Iran has an opportunity at the moment to come in from the cold. If they behave nicely they can stay in and reintegrate ultimately into the civilised world. If they don't, they will be ostracised again before long.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,212
    Dura_Ace said:

    The Harrier's shortcomings are one of the reasons the QE class is so ludicrously big.

    On Invincible we could generate another 8-10 sorties per day usually constrained by technical availability of aircraft which was quite poor. Meanwhile a Nimitz could enerate 120 sorties in 12 hours and that stung. In order to be taken seriously by the USN the RN specified an absolutely ludicrous 150/day sortie rate for the QE class. This is the reason they are so fucking big and expensive.

    However it quickly became obvious that there would never be enough aircraft bought to hit that sortie rate so we've ended up with ships that are completely over-sized for the available aviation assets.

    As always any attempt to evaluate the QE class in terms of military capability is pointless. That's not what they are for; they serve chiefly as a totem of national virility.
    We have useless nukes as a totem of national virility, now two useless aircraft carriers as symobols of national virility. Can a fleet of tumescent airships be far away?
  • Gary_BurtonGary_Burton Posts: 737
    kle4 said:

    People overdo both (and the creepy Tory obsession with Thatcher too, though it may be my imagination but it feels like people are starting to dial both down), but Corbyn was Leader only 2 and a bit years ago - it doesn't mean Tories don't fallback on the 'But Corbyn' line too often as a distraction, they clearly do, but it is more likely to be relevant from time to time at least.
    I've never understood the hatred for Corbyn particularly from Labour centrists even though I don't have an issue with people that merely dislike him/don't care for him which is their right. I haven't seen much evidence that Corbyn is directly shilling for Russia, although it would have been more sensible if he had directly called out Russia at the same time as McDonnell had done.

    I think there has been a lot of silly comment on Russia and also 'crying wolf' with regard to Syria and 'Russiagate' which hasn't been helpful to the overall discourse and understanding of Russia's military ambitions as well as smearing the left on any issues to with NATO even though the vast majority of the left has recognised Putin as the aggressor in this conflict overall.

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,935

    Yes, rather similar. It wasn't a winning strategy for Labour to keep bringing up Thatcher. And it won't be a winning strategy for the Tories to keep bringing up Corbyn. Even less so, actually, as at least Thatcher held power whereas Corbyn didn't.
    I think you are spot on here. It seems to me there are two sets of voters in play for the next election. Red wallers and the give us a better choice than Boris v Corbyn next time brigade.

    Boths groups really dislike Corbyn, but all banging on him about does is remind the latter group that Labour have changed and the Tories have not.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    edited March 2022

    Yes, rather similar. It wasn't a winning strategy for Labour to keep bringing up Thatcher. And it won't be a winning strategy for the Tories to keep bringing up Corbyn. Even less so, actually, as at least Thatcher held power whereas Corbyn didn't.
    ...
    kle4 said:

    Right - a highly relevant factor when people seek to imply Starmer and co must be the same as him because they served under him. But that doesn't mean any mention of them backing him is always unreasonable, it was very recent. It just cannot be pretended things have not moved on which counter that point, so it cannot be relied upon as a get of jail free card.

    It's not very relevant, but nor is it entirely irrelevant. It's like how Godwin's law doesn't mean you can never bring up Nazis.
    Is that a Meta Godwin by you?
This discussion has been closed.