Howdy, Stranger!

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

DeSantis edges Trump out to become new WH2024 favourite – politicalbetting.com

2456

Comments

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,590

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying the Russian nuclear deterrent should not deter Ukraine or Nato, and if so, whither the British nuclear deterrent?
    It should deter Ukraine or NATO from launching an unprovoked attack on Russia.

    They haven't done so. Russia started the war.
    That is to misunderstand the theory of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear missiles were no-one's first resort, which is why we, Nato, Russia and everyone else has conventional forces.

    It is odd that advocates of Britain's nuclear deterrent seem under the illusion that Russia's nuclear arsenal will be ineffective.
    Its not ineffective, its preventing other nations from starting a war against Russia in Russian soil.

    Russia started the war, not the other way around. Striking back at an aggressor who started a war is perfectly legitimate.
    And Ukraine has done that with Nato support which, you will have noticed, does not extend to lobbing missiles or artillery shells or enforcing a no-fly zone inside Russian borders.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,489

    IshmaelZ said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying nuclear weapons are literally irrelevant? Might as well be made of cardboard? Isn't that a bit dim?
    No, they're not irrelevant.

    There is a middle ground between "we should let another nuclear armed state use the threat of its nukes to seize whatever territory it wants" and "nukes are utterly irrelevant, lets invade Moscow unprovoked".
    Not for the poster to whom I was replying
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,750
    Sandpit said:

    What's wrong with taking your children to drag shows? That's the Florida panto season fucked. America is such a mess if this guy is being touted as the sane alternative to Trump.

    There’s nothing wrong with taking *your* children to a panto.

    There’s a lot wrong with schools staging for children what appear to be very adult-themed and sexually provocative drag shows, without asking parents first.
    Do you have a reliable news source for that, because it sounds like complete bollocks.
    We took our kids to a drag show at the Edinburgh Festival, it was very funny, sweet and had a positive message about letting people be who they want to be. I would have had no problem at all if the kids' school had taken them to see it. The only blatant ideological indoctrination that our daughter's primary school indulged in recently was around the Jubilee.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,332

    Sandpit said:

    What's wrong with taking your children to drag shows? That's the Florida panto season fucked. America is such a mess if this guy is being touted as the sane alternative to Trump.

    There’s nothing wrong with taking *your* children to a panto.

    There’s a lot wrong with schools staging for children what appear to be very adult-themed and sexually provocative drag shows, without asking parents first.
    Do you have a reliable news source for that, because it sounds like complete bollocks.
    We took our kids to a drag show at the Edinburgh Festival, it was very funny, sweet and had a positive message about letting people be who they want to be. I would have had no problem at all if the kids' school had taken them to see it. The only blatant ideological indoctrination that our daughter's primary school indulged in recently was around the Jubilee.
    I thought pantomimes WERE drag shows?
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 2,880

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Your initial premise is a complete non sequitur. It doesn't follow at all all that if someone would use the nuclear option in a particular circumstance that they would use it in any circumstance. I doubt very much that Putin would use nukes in any situation other than one in which he felt there was no alternative, but I think the latter danger is real one. It makes no sense to simply dismiss it. We are not fighting WWII. We are fighting an enemy with a large nuclear arsenal.
    I disagree. And I'd appreciate an answer to the question I posed, as it is rather important. To put it another way: if you think Putin will use nukes 'if he felt there was no alternative', why would he not use them over Estonia? Lithuania? Poland?

    If he's mad enough to use them over Ukraine, he'd use them over those countries, as he sees large parts of Eastern Europe as 'his' land.

    I've never said that the threat from nukes is not real, or that it should be dismissed. I think the danger is largely over for their use in Ukraine (Russia has got used to losing), and there's the point that if we let our fear of his nukes stop us doing what is right now, he'll just use that fear again to get more.
    It's a stupid question. Putin will not use nukes overs Estonia, Lithuania or Poland because he has the obvious alternative of not invading them. But if he can't withdraw from Ukraine without jeopardising his position as Russian leader, then he may well end up using nukes there.

    Basically, the West has to ensure that Putin's punishment for invading Ukraine is sufficient to put paid to any plans to invade anywhere else, but not so great as to spark a nuclear war. It's a fine line to tread.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,750
    DavidL said:

    pigeon said:

    Now is the Summer of our discontent...

    Doctors have thrown down the gauntlet to the government by calling for a pay rise of up to 30% over the next five years, in a move that increases the chances of strike action.

    Delegates at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) annual conference voted to press ministers to agree to the increase to make up for real-terms cuts to their salaries over the last 14 years.


    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/27/uk-doctors-demand-pay-rise-of-up-to-30-over-five-years

    It's very difficult to see where the space for compromise is in this situation. The medics have effectively had a huge real terms pay cut since the GFC. They want the whole lot back; the Government wants their wages to continue shrinking for the foreseeable.

    The imminent prospect of industrial action all over the NHS is awkward for the Government, but this and other disputes are going to leave Keir Starmer's fence sitting arse so full of splinters that he won't be able to sit down for months unless he chooses a side. If Labour makes wishy-washy noises about negotiations and nothing else then it will be assumed by angry unions and watching members of the general public alike that it is either entirely clueless, or that it basically agrees with the pay austerity stance of the Conservatives.

    Doubtless the Opposition wants to avoid doing detail before an election campaign in case it finds its ideas being nicked, but public sector pay disputes are happening right now, not in 2024, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask what Labour's approach to these demands is. What criteria do they think are reasonable for calculating pay increments - or are they in the "you get fuck all regardless" camp with the current Government?

    There is a shortage of doctors so the classic market approach might be to pay more, whether it compensates for inflation and previous cuts or not. In any case, the claim appears to be 30 per cent over five years which leaves plenty of room for fudge.
    Given the way that the BoE let the inflation genie loose and how we are all going to be so astonished when it doesn't prove to be a temporary bubble after all but much more persistent throughout next year the odds seem to favour the doctors getting their 30% over the next 5 years without any industrial action at all.

    And it is troubling that they want to get back what they have lost in the period of wage restraint since the GFC. The reason that we had such wage restraint is that the country was living well beyond its means in 2008 sustained by what proved to be illusionary profits from financial services. They are not alone in making this point; the barristers are making the same claim in their dispute. But we cannot go back to what we were earning in 2008 without very substantial improvements in productivity to pay for it. And I am seeing little evidence of that, indeed with remaining Covid protocols quite probably the reverse.
    2008 was 14 years ago - in normal times productivity gains over that period would have been sufficient to get back to 2008 pay levels and beyond. The collapse in productivity growth post-GFC (which has affected most countries even if the UK is one of the worst) is the real problem here.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,349

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Your initial premise is a complete non sequitur. It doesn't follow at all all that if someone would use the nuclear option in a particular circumstance that they would use it in any circumstance. I doubt very much that Putin would use nukes in any situation other than one in which he felt there was no alternative, but I think the latter danger is real one. It makes no sense to simply dismiss it. We are not fighting WWII. We are fighting an enemy with a large nuclear arsenal.
    I disagree. And I'd appreciate an answer to the question I posed, as it is rather important. To put it another way: if you think Putin will use nukes 'if he felt there was no alternative', why would he not use them over Estonia? Lithuania? Poland?

    If he's mad enough to use them over Ukraine, he'd use them over those countries, as he sees large parts of Eastern Europe as 'his' land.

    I've never said that the threat from nukes is not real, or that it should be dismissed. I think the danger is largely over for their use in Ukraine (Russia has got used to losing), and there's the point that if we let our fear of his nukes stop us doing what is right now, he'll just use that fear again to get more.
    It's a stupid question. Putin will not use nukes overs Estonia, Lithuania or Poland because he has the obvious alternative of not invading them. But if he can't withdraw from Ukraine without jeopardising his position as Russian leader, then he may well end up using nukes there.

    Basically, the West has to ensure that Putin's punishment for invading Ukraine is sufficient to put paid to any plans to invade anywhere else, but not so great as to spark a nuclear war. It's a fine line to tread.
    He wants to invade them, or at least he wants them under his control. Listen to what he has been saying over the last few months (and before). His idea of a Greater Russia. He may well see it as his legacy...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 43,125

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Your initial premise is a complete non sequitur. It doesn't follow at all all that if someone would use the nuclear option in a particular circumstance that they would use it in any circumstance. I doubt very much that Putin would use nukes in any situation other than one in which he felt there was no alternative, but I think the latter danger is real one. It makes no sense to simply dismiss it. We are not fighting WWII. We are fighting an enemy with a large nuclear arsenal.
    We're not fighting him; Ukraine is.

    As for nukes, don't doubt that Putin will gabs considered their use. Russia has a large number of low yield (around a tenth of the Hiroshima bomb) battlefield weapons.

    Russian tactical doctrine contemplates their use in offensive operations. What will have held him back is the likely costs to Russia of using them. It would risk a large conventional response from the US/NATO to destroy the invasion force.
    China wouldn't be very happy, either.

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,489

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Your initial premise is a complete non sequitur. It doesn't follow at all all that if someone would use the nuclear option in a particular circumstance that they would use it in any circumstance. I doubt very much that Putin would use nukes in any situation other than one in which he felt there was no alternative, but I think the latter danger is real one. It makes no sense to simply dismiss it. We are not fighting WWII. We are fighting an enemy with a large nuclear arsenal.
    I disagree. And I'd appreciate an answer to the question I posed, as it is rather important. To put it another way: if you think Putin will use nukes 'if he felt there was no alternative', why would he not use them over Estonia? Lithuania? Poland?

    If he's mad enough to use them over Ukraine, he'd use them over those countries, as he sees large parts of Eastern Europe as 'his' land.

    I've never said that the threat from nukes is not real, or that it should be dismissed. I think the danger is largely over for their use in Ukraine (Russia has got used to losing), and there's the point that if we let our fear of his nukes stop us doing what is right now, he'll just use that fear again to get more.
    Russia has got used to losing: first it isn't losing and secondly I assume you have lived in the country for decades, speak the language fluently and are monitoring its media 24/7, if you are capable of assessing that it is getting used to it. Because I refuse to entertain for one second the alternative hypothesis that you are a windbag.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,750
    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    What's wrong with taking your children to drag shows? That's the Florida panto season fucked. America is such a mess if this guy is being touted as the sane alternative to Trump.

    There’s nothing wrong with taking *your* children to a panto.

    There’s a lot wrong with schools staging for children what appear to be very adult-themed and sexually provocative drag shows, without asking parents first.
    Do you have a reliable news source for that, because it sounds like complete bollocks.
    We took our kids to a drag show at the Edinburgh Festival, it was very funny, sweet and had a positive message about letting people be who they want to be. I would have had no problem at all if the kids' school had taken them to see it. The only blatant ideological indoctrination that our daughter's primary school indulged in recently was around the Jubilee.
    I thought pantomimes WERE drag shows?
    They don't have pantos in America because they are terrified of sex, even while being utterly desensitised to violence. It is a very weird culture.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,489
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61961871

    46 immigrants dead in lorry in Texas
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 103,509
    To confuse the enemy. You don’t want to give them an idea of your strength.

    FUSAG was great at that.

    Sometimes formations get reflagged. The 82nd Airborne Division was originally the 82nd Infantry Division.

    Sometimes the number is to honour past formations, we have 16 Air Assault Brigade but we don’t Air Assault Brigades 1 to 15. The 16 comes from having the lineages of the 1st and 6th Airborne Divisions.
    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:



    The British Army is 80k people, plus 50k reservists. How many will we send, 30k or so? That’s one hell of a movement.

    30,000 would be three divisions. There are only two Armoured/Infantry divisions in the entire army! (1st and 3rd). One of those isn't deployable because it's basically just a home for wayward infantry regiments.

    It would be Brigade strength at best so 5-6,000 mounted on a ramshackle assortment of CR2, CVR(T), FV430s and Bulldog/Jackal. It would also severely impeded the effort to commit the scheduled high readiness Mech/Armoured Brigade to NATO as scheduled in 2024 and that endeavour was already hanging on a shoogly peg.

    The NATO 300,000 figure is just a change in readniness status for existing formations. It doesn't generate any new units or move any existing ones.
    One thing I find bizarre is military numbering. Why have two divisions and call them 1 and 3?

    We have 633 squadron, but where are the other 632 squadrons?

    The Americans have the 82nd Airborne, but what happened to the other 81? Etc etc...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,955
    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Your initial premise is a complete non sequitur. It doesn't follow at all all that if someone would use the nuclear option in a particular circumstance that they would use it in any circumstance. I doubt very much that Putin would use nukes in any situation other than one in which he felt there was no alternative, but I think the latter danger is real one. It makes no sense to simply dismiss it. We are not fighting WWII. We are fighting an enemy with a large nuclear arsenal.
    We're not fighting him; Ukraine is.

    As for nukes, don't doubt that Putin will gabs considered their use. Russia has a large number of low yield (around a tenth of the Hiroshima bomb) battlefield weapons.

    Russian tactical doctrine contemplates their use in offensive operations. What will have held him back is the likely costs to Russia of using them. It would risk a large conventional response from the US/NATO to destroy the invasion force.
    China wouldn't be very happy, either.

    I seem to recall an analyst writing that Putin probably hadn't use battlefield nukes so far because in current scenarios they wouldn't gain anything militarily. I can't recall where I read this though. I will try and find it later.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,425
    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..

    Good luck to her - let’s see what she says later as it’ll be interesting to see what the thinking is in terms of “a way around”

    Though in all honesty I don’t think she can delay all that much longer. So it’s an impossible position for her to be in


  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 43,125
    Incidentally, there are suggestions of a partial pause in Russian shelling, owing to the recent strikes on their ammo dumps.
    How significant this is remains to be seen.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,590

    To confuse the enemy. You don’t want to give them an idea of your strength.

    FUSAG was great at that.

    Sometimes formations get reflagged. The 82nd Airborne Division was originally the 82nd Infantry Division.

    Sometimes the number is to honour past formations, we have 16 Air Assault Brigade but we don’t Air Assault Brigades 1 to 15. The 16 comes from having the lineages of the 1st and 6th Airborne Divisions.

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:



    The British Army is 80k people, plus 50k reservists. How many will we send, 30k or so? That’s one hell of a movement.

    30,000 would be three divisions. There are only two Armoured/Infantry divisions in the entire army! (1st and 3rd). One of those isn't deployable because it's basically just a home for wayward infantry regiments.

    It would be Brigade strength at best so 5-6,000 mounted on a ramshackle assortment of CR2, CVR(T), FV430s and Bulldog/Jackal. It would also severely impeded the effort to commit the scheduled high readiness Mech/Armoured Brigade to NATO as scheduled in 2024 and that endeavour was already hanging on a shoogly peg.

    The NATO 300,000 figure is just a change in readniness status for existing formations. It doesn't generate any new units or move any existing ones.
    One thing I find bizarre is military numbering. Why have two divisions and call them 1 and 3?

    We have 633 squadron, but where are the other 632 squadrons?

    The Americans have the 82nd Airborne, but what happened to the other 81? Etc etc...
    Why have you suddenly switched to Plato-esque commenting above the quoted matter? We should all stick to the same convention, whether above or below, or chaos will result.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 103,509
    edited June 28
    Vanilla is having one its quirks.

    It won’t let you scroll down to the bottom of a post on an iPhone.

    To confuse the enemy. You don’t want to give them an idea of your strength.

    FUSAG was great at that.

    Sometimes formations get reflagged. The 82nd Airborne Division was originally the 82nd Infantry Division.

    Sometimes the number is to honour past formations, we have 16 Air Assault Brigade but we don’t Air Assault Brigades 1 to 15. The 16 comes from having the lineages of the 1st and 6th Airborne Divisions.

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:



    The British Army is 80k people, plus 50k reservists. How many will we send, 30k or so? That’s one hell of a movement.

    30,000 would be three divisions. There are only two Armoured/Infantry divisions in the entire army! (1st and 3rd). One of those isn't deployable because it's basically just a home for wayward infantry regiments.

    It would be Brigade strength at best so 5-6,000 mounted on a ramshackle assortment of CR2, CVR(T), FV430s and Bulldog/Jackal. It would also severely impeded the effort to commit the scheduled high readiness Mech/Armoured Brigade to NATO as scheduled in 2024 and that endeavour was already hanging on a shoogly peg.

    The NATO 300,000 figure is just a change in readniness status for existing formations. It doesn't generate any new units or move any existing ones.
    One thing I find bizarre is military numbering. Why have two divisions and call them 1 and 3?

    We have 633 squadron, but where are the other 632 squadrons?

    The Americans have the 82nd Airborne, but what happened to the other 81? Etc etc...
    Why have you suddenly switched to Plato-esque commenting above the quoted matter? We should all stick to the same convention, whether above or below, or chaos will result.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,057

    Sandpit said:

    What's wrong with taking your children to drag shows? That's the Florida panto season fucked. America is such a mess if this guy is being touted as the sane alternative to Trump.

    There’s nothing wrong with taking *your* children to a panto.

    There’s a lot wrong with schools staging for children what appear to be very adult-themed and sexually provocative drag shows, without asking parents first.
    Do you have a reliable news source for that, because it sounds like complete bollocks.
    We took our kids to a drag show at the Edinburgh Festival, it was very funny, sweet and had a positive message about letting people be who they want to be. I would have had no problem at all if the kids' school had taken them to see it. The only blatant ideological indoctrination that our daughter's primary school indulged in recently was around the Jubilee.
    There have been a few stories in the US: these are not pantomimes, but adult drag shows performed to kids, organised by LGBT…. groups as part of “Pride Month”. The criticism is that the performances are not age-appropriate for the audience. One took place in a 21+ strip club in the afternoon.

    Some links from neutral news sources:
    https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/local/ankeny/2022/05/25/ankeny-high-school-drag-show-under-investigation-negative-social-media/9926324002/
    https://www.westernjournal.com/school-drag-show-sparks-major-investigation-staff-placed-leave/
    https://go2tutors.com/iowa-school-drag-show/

    There was this one in the UK a couple of months ago.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8038669/Furious-parents-slam-primary-school-drag-queen-Flowjob-read-pupils-young-four.html
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 43,125
    edited June 28

    Vanilla is having one its quirks.

    It won’t let you scroll down to the bottom of a post on an iPhone.

    To confuse the enemy. You don’t want to give them an idea of your strength.

    FUSAG was great at that.

    Sometimes formations get reflagged. The 82nd Airborne Division was originally the 82nd Infantry Division.

    Sometimes the number is to honour past formations, we have 16 Air Assault Brigade but we don’t Air Assault Brigades 1 to 15. The 16 comes from having the lineages of the 1st and 6th Airborne Divisions.

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:



    The British Army is 80k people, plus 50k reservists. How many will we send, 30k or so? That’s one hell of a movement.

    30,000 would be three divisions. There are only two Armoured/Infantry divisions in the entire army! (1st and 3rd). One of those isn't deployable because it's basically just a home for wayward infantry regiments.

    It would be Brigade strength at best so 5-6,000 mounted on a ramshackle assortment of CR2, CVR(T), FV430s and Bulldog/Jackal. It would also severely impeded the effort to commit the scheduled high readiness Mech/Armoured Brigade to NATO as scheduled in 2024 and that endeavour was already hanging on a shoogly peg.

    The NATO 300,000 figure is just a change in readniness status for existing formations. It doesn't generate any new units or move any existing ones.
    One thing I find bizarre is military numbering. Why have two divisions and call them 1 and 3?

    We have 633 squadron, but where are the other 632 squadrons?

    The Americans have the 82nd Airborne, but what happened to the other 81? Etc etc...
    Why have you suddenly switched to Plato-esque commenting above the quoted matter? We should all stick to the same convention, whether above or below, or chaos will result.
    You can scroll further down by using line break and delete, though it's a bit tedious to do for more than a couple of lines.

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,750
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    What's wrong with taking your children to drag shows? That's the Florida panto season fucked. America is such a mess if this guy is being touted as the sane alternative to Trump.

    There’s nothing wrong with taking *your* children to a panto.

    There’s a lot wrong with schools staging for children what appear to be very adult-themed and sexually provocative drag shows, without asking parents first.
    Do you have a reliable news source for that, because it sounds like complete bollocks.
    We took our kids to a drag show at the Edinburgh Festival, it was very funny, sweet and had a positive message about letting people be who they want to be. I would have had no problem at all if the kids' school had taken them to see it. The only blatant ideological indoctrination that our daughter's primary school indulged in recently was around the Jubilee.
    There have been a few stories in the US: these are not pantomimes, but adult drag shows performed to kids, organised by LGBT…. groups as part of “Pride Month”. The criticism is that the performances are not age-appropriate for the audience. One took place in a 21+ strip club in the afternoon.

    Some links from neutral news sources:
    https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/local/ankeny/2022/05/25/ankeny-high-school-drag-show-under-investigation-negative-social-media/9926324002/
    https://www.westernjournal.com/school-drag-show-sparks-major-investigation-staff-placed-leave/
    https://go2tutors.com/iowa-school-drag-show/

    There was this one in the UK a couple of months ago.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8038669/Furious-parents-slam-primary-school-drag-queen-Flowjob-read-pupils-young-four.html
    So your first story says that the show was organised by the high school "gray-straight alliance" club and attended by the club's members. The show involved drag performers lip synching to songs dressed in drag costumes, and they then answered questions about overcoming prejudice. What is there to object to in any of that?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,482
    edited June 28

    DavidL said:

    pigeon said:

    Now is the Summer of our discontent...

    Doctors have thrown down the gauntlet to the government by calling for a pay rise of up to 30% over the next five years, in a move that increases the chances of strike action.

    Delegates at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) annual conference voted to press ministers to agree to the increase to make up for real-terms cuts to their salaries over the last 14 years.


    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/27/uk-doctors-demand-pay-rise-of-up-to-30-over-five-years

    It's very difficult to see where the space for compromise is in this situation. The medics have effectively had a huge real terms pay cut since the GFC. They want the whole lot back; the Government wants their wages to continue shrinking for the foreseeable.

    The imminent prospect of industrial action all over the NHS is awkward for the Government, but this and other disputes are going to leave Keir Starmer's fence sitting arse so full of splinters that he won't be able to sit down for months unless he chooses a side. If Labour makes wishy-washy noises about negotiations and nothing else then it will be assumed by angry unions and watching members of the general public alike that it is either entirely clueless, or that it basically agrees with the pay austerity stance of the Conservatives.

    Doubtless the Opposition wants to avoid doing detail before an election campaign in case it finds its ideas being nicked, but public sector pay disputes are happening right now, not in 2024, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask what Labour's approach to these demands is. What criteria do they think are reasonable for calculating pay increments - or are they in the "you get fuck all regardless" camp with the current Government?

    There is a shortage of doctors so the classic market approach might be to pay more, whether it compensates for inflation and previous cuts or not. In any case, the claim appears to be 30 per cent over five years which leaves plenty of room for fudge.
    Given the way that the BoE let the inflation genie loose and how we are all going to be so astonished when it doesn't prove to be a temporary bubble after all but much more persistent throughout next year the odds seem to favour the doctors getting their 30% over the next 5 years without any industrial action at all.

    And it is troubling that they want to get back what they have lost in the period of wage restraint since the GFC. The reason that we had such wage restraint is that the country was living well beyond its means in 2008 sustained by what proved to be illusionary profits from financial services. They are not alone in making this point; the barristers are making the same claim in their dispute. But we cannot go back to what we were earning in 2008 without very substantial improvements in productivity to pay for it. And I am seeing little evidence of that, indeed with remaining Covid protocols quite probably the reverse.
    2008 was 14 years ago - in normal times productivity gains over that period would have been sufficient to get back to 2008 pay levels and beyond. The collapse in productivity growth post-GFC (which has affected most countries even if the UK is one of the worst) is the real problem here.
    Yes, that is true. Why has productivity not continued to grow? In the UK a partial factor has been the huge increase in low paid, casual employment where productivity, investment and training are absolutely minimal. In the main economy, however, we seem to be finding that the bureaucracy that comes with internet and computer systems, for example, is offsetting the potential gains. And, as you point out, we are not alone in this.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,750
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    pigeon said:

    Now is the Summer of our discontent...

    Doctors have thrown down the gauntlet to the government by calling for a pay rise of up to 30% over the next five years, in a move that increases the chances of strike action.

    Delegates at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) annual conference voted to press ministers to agree to the increase to make up for real-terms cuts to their salaries over the last 14 years.


    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/27/uk-doctors-demand-pay-rise-of-up-to-30-over-five-years

    It's very difficult to see where the space for compromise is in this situation. The medics have effectively had a huge real terms pay cut since the GFC. They want the whole lot back; the Government wants their wages to continue shrinking for the foreseeable.

    The imminent prospect of industrial action all over the NHS is awkward for the Government, but this and other disputes are going to leave Keir Starmer's fence sitting arse so full of splinters that he won't be able to sit down for months unless he chooses a side. If Labour makes wishy-washy noises about negotiations and nothing else then it will be assumed by angry unions and watching members of the general public alike that it is either entirely clueless, or that it basically agrees with the pay austerity stance of the Conservatives.

    Doubtless the Opposition wants to avoid doing detail before an election campaign in case it finds its ideas being nicked, but public sector pay disputes are happening right now, not in 2024, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask what Labour's approach to these demands is. What criteria do they think are reasonable for calculating pay increments - or are they in the "you get fuck all regardless" camp with the current Government?

    There is a shortage of doctors so the classic market approach might be to pay more, whether it compensates for inflation and previous cuts or not. In any case, the claim appears to be 30 per cent over five years which leaves plenty of room for fudge.
    Given the way that the BoE let the inflation genie loose and how we are all going to be so astonished when it doesn't prove to be a temporary bubble after all but much more persistent throughout next year the odds seem to favour the doctors getting their 30% over the next 5 years without any industrial action at all.

    And it is troubling that they want to get back what they have lost in the period of wage restraint since the GFC. The reason that we had such wage restraint is that the country was living well beyond its means in 2008 sustained by what proved to be illusionary profits from financial services. They are not alone in making this point; the barristers are making the same claim in their dispute. But we cannot go back to what we were earning in 2008 without very substantial improvements in productivity to pay for it. And I am seeing little evidence of that, indeed with remaining Covid protocols quite probably the reverse.
    2008 was 14 years ago - in normal times productivity gains over that period would have been sufficient to get back to 2008 pay levels and beyond. The collapse in productivity growth post-GFC (which has affected most countries even if the UK is one of the worst) is the real problem here.
    Yes, that is true. Why has productivity not continued to grow? In the UK a partial factor has been the huge increase in low paid, casual employment where productivity, investment and training are absolutely minimal. In the main economy, however, we seem to be finding that the bureaucracy that comes with internet and computer systems, for example is offsetting the potential gains. And, as you point out, we are not alone in this.
    I would see the increase in low wage low productivity jobs as more a symptom than a cause. If the economy were generating plenty of high productivity jobs then nobody would take the Deliveroo type positions.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,210
    Good morning

    Looking at the voting on the NI protocol bill last night it passed 292/222, but 72 conservative mps and 36 labour mps abstained

    What a farce this is
  • KeystoneKeystone Posts: 72

    Cricket officials believe cocaine fuelling crowd problems
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cricket-officials-believe-cocaine-fuelling-crowd-problems-g6d3h5xx2 (£££)

    Cocaine has also been blamed for problems at football and racing.

    Charlie don't turf
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,482

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    What's wrong with taking your children to drag shows? That's the Florida panto season fucked. America is such a mess if this guy is being touted as the sane alternative to Trump.

    There’s nothing wrong with taking *your* children to a panto.

    There’s a lot wrong with schools staging for children what appear to be very adult-themed and sexually provocative drag shows, without asking parents first.
    Do you have a reliable news source for that, because it sounds like complete bollocks.
    We took our kids to a drag show at the Edinburgh Festival, it was very funny, sweet and had a positive message about letting people be who they want to be. I would have had no problem at all if the kids' school had taken them to see it. The only blatant ideological indoctrination that our daughter's primary school indulged in recently was around the Jubilee.
    I thought pantomimes WERE drag shows?
    They don't have pantos in America because they are terrified of sex, even while being utterly desensitised to violence. It is a very weird culture.
    Anyone who watches panto in this country but accuses others of being weird is, just possibly, lacking insight. Looked at objectively our panto is....weird.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,107
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    pigeon said:

    Now is the Summer of our discontent...

    Doctors have thrown down the gauntlet to the government by calling for a pay rise of up to 30% over the next five years, in a move that increases the chances of strike action.

    Delegates at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) annual conference voted to press ministers to agree to the increase to make up for real-terms cuts to their salaries over the last 14 years.


    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/27/uk-doctors-demand-pay-rise-of-up-to-30-over-five-years

    It's very difficult to see where the space for compromise is in this situation. The medics have effectively had a huge real terms pay cut since the GFC. They want the whole lot back; the Government wants their wages to continue shrinking for the foreseeable.

    The imminent prospect of industrial action all over the NHS is awkward for the Government, but this and other disputes are going to leave Keir Starmer's fence sitting arse so full of splinters that he won't be able to sit down for months unless he chooses a side. If Labour makes wishy-washy noises about negotiations and nothing else then it will be assumed by angry unions and watching members of the general public alike that it is either entirely clueless, or that it basically agrees with the pay austerity stance of the Conservatives.

    Doubtless the Opposition wants to avoid doing detail before an election campaign in case it finds its ideas being nicked, but public sector pay disputes are happening right now, not in 2024, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask what Labour's approach to these demands is. What criteria do they think are reasonable for calculating pay increments - or are they in the "you get fuck all regardless" camp with the current Government?

    There is a shortage of doctors so the classic market approach might be to pay more, whether it compensates for inflation and previous cuts or not. In any case, the claim appears to be 30 per cent over five years which leaves plenty of room for fudge.
    Given the way that the BoE let the inflation genie loose and how we are all going to be so astonished when it doesn't prove to be a temporary bubble after all but much more persistent throughout next year the odds seem to favour the doctors getting their 30% over the next 5 years without any industrial action at all.

    And it is troubling that they want to get back what they have lost in the period of wage restraint since the GFC. The reason that we had such wage restraint is that the country was living well beyond its means in 2008 sustained by what proved to be illusionary profits from financial services. They are not alone in making this point; the barristers are making the same claim in their dispute. But we cannot go back to what we were earning in 2008 without very substantial improvements in productivity to pay for it. And I am seeing little evidence of that, indeed with remaining Covid protocols quite probably the reverse.
    2008 was 14 years ago - in normal times productivity gains over that period would have been sufficient to get back to 2008 pay levels and beyond. The collapse in productivity growth post-GFC (which has affected most countries even if the UK is one of the worst) is the real problem here.
    Yes, that is true. Why has productivity not continued to grow? In the UK a partial factor has been the huge increase in low paid, casual employment where productivity, investment and training are absolutely minimal. In the main economy, however, we seem to be finding that the bureaucracy that comes with internet and computer systems, for example, is offsetting the potential gains. And, as you point out, we are not alone in this.
    Healthcare and Criminal law representation in court aren't exactly areas where productivity gains can be made.

    In reality though the NHS has made significant administrative improvements over the years but there are whole sets of other issues we need to handle.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 9,512

    Good morning

    Looking at the voting on the NI protocol bill last night it passed 292/222, but 72 conservative mps and 36 labour mps abstained

    What a farce this is

    I'm not sure what you mean? Its possible some of those who abstained were paired (so equal and opposite). Its also a first reading, so many stages to go, at which point amendments and scrutiny will be greater.

    And ultimately its likely that this bill is an attempt to build pressure on the EU to meet the UK in the middle more than is currently the case over trade that is exclusively within the UK, where the EU really should have no say whatever, but is currently intervening with stringent checks that are causing harms to some businesses.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 103,034
    edited June 28
    These odds are ludicrous given DeSantis will lose the Florida governorship 49% to 51% in November to likely Democrat candidate Charlie Crist on the latest poll.

    If he cannot even get re elected as Florida governor he has zero chance of the GOP nomination and Presidency in 2024.
    http://thelistenergroup.com/charlie-crist-leading-ron-desantis-in-very-close-race/

    Instead, Trump if he decides to run again, Pence running on a hard pro life platform and Haley would be the likely main candidates for the GOP nomination, perhaps with Ted Cruz
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,482

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    pigeon said:

    Now is the Summer of our discontent...

    Doctors have thrown down the gauntlet to the government by calling for a pay rise of up to 30% over the next five years, in a move that increases the chances of strike action.

    Delegates at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) annual conference voted to press ministers to agree to the increase to make up for real-terms cuts to their salaries over the last 14 years.


    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/27/uk-doctors-demand-pay-rise-of-up-to-30-over-five-years

    It's very difficult to see where the space for compromise is in this situation. The medics have effectively had a huge real terms pay cut since the GFC. They want the whole lot back; the Government wants their wages to continue shrinking for the foreseeable.

    The imminent prospect of industrial action all over the NHS is awkward for the Government, but this and other disputes are going to leave Keir Starmer's fence sitting arse so full of splinters that he won't be able to sit down for months unless he chooses a side. If Labour makes wishy-washy noises about negotiations and nothing else then it will be assumed by angry unions and watching members of the general public alike that it is either entirely clueless, or that it basically agrees with the pay austerity stance of the Conservatives.

    Doubtless the Opposition wants to avoid doing detail before an election campaign in case it finds its ideas being nicked, but public sector pay disputes are happening right now, not in 2024, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask what Labour's approach to these demands is. What criteria do they think are reasonable for calculating pay increments - or are they in the "you get fuck all regardless" camp with the current Government?

    There is a shortage of doctors so the classic market approach might be to pay more, whether it compensates for inflation and previous cuts or not. In any case, the claim appears to be 30 per cent over five years which leaves plenty of room for fudge.
    Given the way that the BoE let the inflation genie loose and how we are all going to be so astonished when it doesn't prove to be a temporary bubble after all but much more persistent throughout next year the odds seem to favour the doctors getting their 30% over the next 5 years without any industrial action at all.

    And it is troubling that they want to get back what they have lost in the period of wage restraint since the GFC. The reason that we had such wage restraint is that the country was living well beyond its means in 2008 sustained by what proved to be illusionary profits from financial services. They are not alone in making this point; the barristers are making the same claim in their dispute. But we cannot go back to what we were earning in 2008 without very substantial improvements in productivity to pay for it. And I am seeing little evidence of that, indeed with remaining Covid protocols quite probably the reverse.
    2008 was 14 years ago - in normal times productivity gains over that period would have been sufficient to get back to 2008 pay levels and beyond. The collapse in productivity growth post-GFC (which has affected most countries even if the UK is one of the worst) is the real problem here.
    Yes, that is true. Why has productivity not continued to grow? In the UK a partial factor has been the huge increase in low paid, casual employment where productivity, investment and training are absolutely minimal. In the main economy, however, we seem to be finding that the bureaucracy that comes with internet and computer systems, for example is offsetting the potential gains. And, as you point out, we are not alone in this.
    I would see the increase in low wage low productivity jobs as more a symptom than a cause. If the economy were generating plenty of high productivity jobs then nobody would take the Deliveroo type positions.
    Well they would if the output of our education system were such that these hypothetical well paid jobs were simply beyond them. 13 years of compulsory education and so many can barely read or count. They need to do something.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 103,034

    Good morning

    Looking at the voting on the NI protocol bill last night it passed 292/222, but 72 conservative mps and 36 labour mps abstained

    What a farce this is

    All DUP MPs voted in favour of course this time despite having consistently voted against the EU Withdrawal Agreement
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,969
    edited June 28
    The one striking group I do have some sympathy with are the barristers. Their legal aid prep work should be chargeable to the taxpayer. The rate shouldn't be so high mind - maybe £15 per hour, they'll still earn the court time on top and have good pay going forward.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,750
    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    What's wrong with taking your children to drag shows? That's the Florida panto season fucked. America is such a mess if this guy is being touted as the sane alternative to Trump.

    There’s nothing wrong with taking *your* children to a panto.

    There’s a lot wrong with schools staging for children what appear to be very adult-themed and sexually provocative drag shows, without asking parents first.
    Do you have a reliable news source for that, because it sounds like complete bollocks.
    We took our kids to a drag show at the Edinburgh Festival, it was very funny, sweet and had a positive message about letting people be who they want to be. I would have had no problem at all if the kids' school had taken them to see it. The only blatant ideological indoctrination that our daughter's primary school indulged in recently was around the Jubilee.
    I thought pantomimes WERE drag shows?
    They don't have pantos in America because they are terrified of sex, even while being utterly desensitised to violence. It is a very weird culture.
    Anyone who watches panto in this country but accuses others of being weird is, just possibly, lacking insight. Looked at objectively our panto is....weird.
    Oh no it isn't!
    All culture is weird when you look at it objectively. We are a deeply weird species, it is what makes us interesting.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,121

    Vanilla is having one its quirks.

    It won’t let you scroll down to the bottom of a post on an iPhone.

    To confuse the enemy. You don’t want to give them an idea of your strength.

    FUSAG was great at that.

    Sometimes formations get reflagged. The 82nd Airborne Division was originally the 82nd Infantry Division.

    Sometimes the number is to honour past formations, we have 16 Air Assault Brigade but we don’t Air Assault Brigades 1 to 15. The 16 comes from having the lineages of the 1st and 6th Airborne Divisions.

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:



    The British Army is 80k people, plus 50k reservists. How many will we send, 30k or so? That’s one hell of a movement.

    30,000 would be three divisions. There are only two Armoured/Infantry divisions in the entire army! (1st and 3rd). One of those isn't deployable because it's basically just a home for wayward infantry regiments.

    It would be Brigade strength at best so 5-6,000 mounted on a ramshackle assortment of CR2, CVR(T), FV430s and Bulldog/Jackal. It would also severely impeded the effort to commit the scheduled high readiness Mech/Armoured Brigade to NATO as scheduled in 2024 and that endeavour was already hanging on a shoogly peg.

    The NATO 300,000 figure is just a change in readniness status for existing formations. It doesn't generate any new units or move any existing ones.
    One thing I find bizarre is military numbering. Why have two divisions and call them 1 and 3?

    We have 633 squadron, but where are the other 632 squadrons?

    The Americans have the 82nd Airborne, but what happened to the other 81? Etc etc...
    Why have you suddenly switched to Plato-esque commenting above the quoted matter? We should all stick to the same convention, whether above or below, or chaos will result.
    Click and hold to select text. Drag selection down to bottom. Clear selection.
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    What's wrong with taking your children to drag shows? That's the Florida panto season fucked. America is such a mess if this guy is being touted as the sane alternative to Trump.

    There’s nothing wrong with taking *your* children to a panto.

    There’s a lot wrong with schools staging for children what appear to be very adult-themed and sexually provocative drag shows, without asking parents first.
    Do you have a reliable news source for that, because it sounds like complete bollocks.
    We took our kids to a drag show at the Edinburgh Festival, it was very funny, sweet and had a positive message about letting people be who they want to be. I would have had no problem at all if the kids' school had taken them to see it. The only blatant ideological indoctrination that our daughter's primary school indulged in recently was around the Jubilee.
    There have been a few stories in the US: these are not pantomimes, but adult drag shows performed to kids, organised by LGBT…. groups as part of “Pride Month”. The criticism is that the performances are not age-appropriate for the audience. One took place in a 21+ strip club in the afternoon.

    Some links from neutral news sources:
    https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/local/ankeny/2022/05/25/ankeny-high-school-drag-show-under-investigation-negative-social-media/9926324002/
    https://www.westernjournal.com/school-drag-show-sparks-major-investigation-staff-placed-leave/
    https://go2tutors.com/iowa-school-drag-show/

    There was this one in the UK a couple of months ago.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8038669/Furious-parents-slam-primary-school-drag-queen-Flowjob-read-pupils-young-four.html
    I thought the request was for a reliable news source, and you're quoting from the Mail?

    Anyway, what's the issue with someone doing a reading who happens to have sexually explicit stuff on their social media platform? I wouldn't let my eight year old on Facebook, let alone a four year old, unless the sexually explicit stuff was brought into the classroom (it wasn't) so frigging what if its elsewhere on the internet?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 34,872
    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    I wonder what mandate the head of a party sub branch that has fought every single election since 2014 on the promise that voting for them will stop indy ref 2 and lost by a distance every time feels he has?

    If wee Dougie & Co follow through on the 'we're no playing' gambit it'll be great entertainment to see them trying to observe omerta while dying to spout Project Fear 347.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,107

    Good morning

    Looking at the voting on the NI protocol bill last night it passed 292/222, but 72 conservative mps and 36 labour mps abstained

    What a farce this is

    I'm not sure what you mean? Its possible some of those who abstained were paired (so equal and opposite). Its also a first reading, so many stages to go, at which point amendments and scrutiny will be greater.

    And ultimately its likely that this bill is an attempt to build pressure on the EU to meet the UK in the middle more than is currently the case over trade that is exclusively within the UK, where the EU really should have no say whatever, but is currently intervening with stringent checks that are causing harms to some businesses.
    The only reason the EU has a say is because Bozo the clown gave them a say by moving the border...
  • eekeek Posts: 21,107
    Pulpstar said:

    The one striking group I do have some sympathy with are the barristers. Their legal aid prep work should be chargeable to the taxpayer. The rate shouldn't be so high mind - maybe £15 per hour, they'll still earn the court time on top and have good pay going forward.

    £15 an hour for prep would result in them getting a whole lot more than they are asking for.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 47,341

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying the Russian nuclear deterrent should not deter Ukraine or Nato, and if so, whither the British nuclear deterrent?
    It should deter Ukraine or NATO from launching an unprovoked attack on Russia.

    They haven't done so. Russia started the war.
    That is to misunderstand the theory of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear missiles were no-one's first resort, which is why we, Nato, Russia and everyone else has conventional forces.

    It is odd that advocates of Britain's nuclear deterrent seem under the illusion that Russia's nuclear arsenal will be ineffective.
    Maintaining nuclear weapons is very expensive.

    Remember Russian tyres in the first few weeks of the war? If Russian nukes have been subject to the same neglect, there is a high chance that most of them do not work, and may even be a threat mostly to those who seek to fire them.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,482
    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    pigeon said:

    Now is the Summer of our discontent...

    Doctors have thrown down the gauntlet to the government by calling for a pay rise of up to 30% over the next five years, in a move that increases the chances of strike action.

    Delegates at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) annual conference voted to press ministers to agree to the increase to make up for real-terms cuts to their salaries over the last 14 years.


    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/27/uk-doctors-demand-pay-rise-of-up-to-30-over-five-years

    It's very difficult to see where the space for compromise is in this situation. The medics have effectively had a huge real terms pay cut since the GFC. They want the whole lot back; the Government wants their wages to continue shrinking for the foreseeable.

    The imminent prospect of industrial action all over the NHS is awkward for the Government, but this and other disputes are going to leave Keir Starmer's fence sitting arse so full of splinters that he won't be able to sit down for months unless he chooses a side. If Labour makes wishy-washy noises about negotiations and nothing else then it will be assumed by angry unions and watching members of the general public alike that it is either entirely clueless, or that it basically agrees with the pay austerity stance of the Conservatives.

    Doubtless the Opposition wants to avoid doing detail before an election campaign in case it finds its ideas being nicked, but public sector pay disputes are happening right now, not in 2024, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask what Labour's approach to these demands is. What criteria do they think are reasonable for calculating pay increments - or are they in the "you get fuck all regardless" camp with the current Government?

    There is a shortage of doctors so the classic market approach might be to pay more, whether it compensates for inflation and previous cuts or not. In any case, the claim appears to be 30 per cent over five years which leaves plenty of room for fudge.
    Given the way that the BoE let the inflation genie loose and how we are all going to be so astonished when it doesn't prove to be a temporary bubble after all but much more persistent throughout next year the odds seem to favour the doctors getting their 30% over the next 5 years without any industrial action at all.

    And it is troubling that they want to get back what they have lost in the period of wage restraint since the GFC. The reason that we had such wage restraint is that the country was living well beyond its means in 2008 sustained by what proved to be illusionary profits from financial services. They are not alone in making this point; the barristers are making the same claim in their dispute. But we cannot go back to what we were earning in 2008 without very substantial improvements in productivity to pay for it. And I am seeing little evidence of that, indeed with remaining Covid protocols quite probably the reverse.
    2008 was 14 years ago - in normal times productivity gains over that period would have been sufficient to get back to 2008 pay levels and beyond. The collapse in productivity growth post-GFC (which has affected most countries even if the UK is one of the worst) is the real problem here.
    Yes, that is true. Why has productivity not continued to grow? In the UK a partial factor has been the huge increase in low paid, casual employment where productivity, investment and training are absolutely minimal. In the main economy, however, we seem to be finding that the bureaucracy that comes with internet and computer systems, for example, is offsetting the potential gains. And, as you point out, we are not alone in this.
    Healthcare and Criminal law representation in court aren't exactly areas where productivity gains can be made.

    In reality though the NHS has made significant administrative improvements over the years but there are whole sets of other issues we need to handle.
    I don't agree. Many medical advances, such as localised surgery, should significantly boost productivity. Increasing use of robotics should help too.

    In law I am today empannelling a jury for a trial. This used to be part of the first day of a trial but is now given a day on its own because the jury members need not only to be picked but then attend the remote viewing centre from where they will watch the trial. So every trial in the High Court takes an extra day. Judges have also decided in recent years that Juries need to have some idea of what they are doing before we start. I think that is right but it is another 2 hours of court time added to every trial. It's no wonder we are finding addressing the backlog so hard.

    Anyway, time to get on.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 9,512
    eek said:

    Good morning

    Looking at the voting on the NI protocol bill last night it passed 292/222, but 72 conservative mps and 36 labour mps abstained

    What a farce this is

    I'm not sure what you mean? Its possible some of those who abstained were paired (so equal and opposite). Its also a first reading, so many stages to go, at which point amendments and scrutiny will be greater.

    And ultimately its likely that this bill is an attempt to build pressure on the EU to meet the UK in the middle more than is currently the case over trade that is exclusively within the UK, where the EU really should have no say whatever, but is currently intervening with stringent checks that are causing harms to some businesses.
    The only reason the EU has a say is because Bozo the clown gave them a say by moving the border...
    But what was the alternative? We were bullied into the wrong sequence, which May signed up to. We cannot have a border on the island of Ireland. We need to way to allow trade within our country to not be affected by the EU. It should be a decent trusted trader scheme, but by all accounts the EU is dragging its heels at the same time as imposing more checks on trade than anywhere else where there is an external border.

    May's deal was an option, but it had no unilateral exit, which was Geoffrey Cox's finest hour, when he laid this out in Parliament.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,261
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    pigeon said:

    Now is the Summer of our discontent...

    Doctors have thrown down the gauntlet to the government by calling for a pay rise of up to 30% over the next five years, in a move that increases the chances of strike action.

    Delegates at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) annual conference voted to press ministers to agree to the increase to make up for real-terms cuts to their salaries over the last 14 years.


    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/27/uk-doctors-demand-pay-rise-of-up-to-30-over-five-years

    It's very difficult to see where the space for compromise is in this situation. The medics have effectively had a huge real terms pay cut since the GFC. They want the whole lot back; the Government wants their wages to continue shrinking for the foreseeable.

    The imminent prospect of industrial action all over the NHS is awkward for the Government, but this and other disputes are going to leave Keir Starmer's fence sitting arse so full of splinters that he won't be able to sit down for months unless he chooses a side. If Labour makes wishy-washy noises about negotiations and nothing else then it will be assumed by angry unions and watching members of the general public alike that it is either entirely clueless, or that it basically agrees with the pay austerity stance of the Conservatives.

    Doubtless the Opposition wants to avoid doing detail before an election campaign in case it finds its ideas being nicked, but public sector pay disputes are happening right now, not in 2024, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask what Labour's approach to these demands is. What criteria do they think are reasonable for calculating pay increments - or are they in the "you get fuck all regardless" camp with the current Government?

    There is a shortage of doctors so the classic market approach might be to pay more, whether it compensates for inflation and previous cuts or not. In any case, the claim appears to be 30 per cent over five years which leaves plenty of room for fudge.
    Given the way that the BoE let the inflation genie loose and how we are all going to be so astonished when it doesn't prove to be a temporary bubble after all but much more persistent throughout next year the odds seem to favour the doctors getting their 30% over the next 5 years without any industrial action at all.

    And it is troubling that they want to get back what they have lost in the period of wage restraint since the GFC. The reason that we had such wage restraint is that the country was living well beyond its means in 2008 sustained by what proved to be illusionary profits from financial services. They are not alone in making this point; the barristers are making the same claim in their dispute. But we cannot go back to what we were earning in 2008 without very substantial improvements in productivity to pay for it. And I am seeing little evidence of that, indeed with remaining Covid protocols quite probably the reverse.
    2008 was 14 years ago - in normal times productivity gains over that period would have been sufficient to get back to 2008 pay levels and beyond. The collapse in productivity growth post-GFC (which has affected most countries even if the UK is one of the worst) is the real problem here.
    Yes, that is true. Why has productivity not continued to grow? In the UK a partial factor has been the huge increase in low paid, casual employment where productivity, investment and training are absolutely minimal. In the main economy, however, we seem to be finding that the bureaucracy that comes with internet and computer systems, for example, is offsetting the potential gains. And, as you point out, we are not alone in this.
    Also, some types of job are much better suited for productivity gains than others. Certainly if we're thinking the doubling, tripling, tenfold improvements that you can get in manufacturing or data processing.

    And in a lot of service roles, the productivity gains that can be found look awfully like a redcution in service, which doesn't go down well. In schools, the main way to get more productivity would be to stick a couple more pupils in each class. Ouch. In medicine, telephone triage, 111 and whatnot become "I can't see my doctor".

    (Yes, there is some annoying bureaucracy, much of it driven by government demands. But a lot of it is achieved in unpaid overtime, so cutting it would save less than you might think.)

    Since 2008, we've had real-terms productivity gains, in schools anyway, by squeezing salaries. The state has (in real terms) paid less for the same amount of teaching. But there's no more juice in that particular lemon- teachers are leaving because they can't afford to stay, and the pipeline of new teachers is drying up.

    https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/reducing-workload-and-flexible-working-could-boost-teacher-recruitment

    So now the state has a much less pleasant choice. Either stump up more cash, plan to have less education, health care, social care, barristering etc happening, or have less education etc in an unplaned way because you can't get the staff.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,489
    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying the Russian nuclear deterrent should not deter Ukraine or Nato, and if so, whither the British nuclear deterrent?
    It should deter Ukraine or NATO from launching an unprovoked attack on Russia.

    They haven't done so. Russia started the war.
    That is to misunderstand the theory of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear missiles were no-one's first resort, which is why we, Nato, Russia and everyone else has conventional forces.

    It is odd that advocates of Britain's nuclear deterrent seem under the illusion that Russia's nuclear arsenal will be ineffective.
    Maintaining nuclear weapons is very expensive.

    Remember Russian tyres in the first few weeks of the war? If Russian nukes have been subject to the same neglect, there is a high chance that most of them do not work, and may even be a threat mostly to those who seek to fire them.

    The thing there is, they have lots of brand new nukes.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,349
    IshmaelZ said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earliHa er you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Your initial premise is a complete non sequitur. It doesn't follow at all all that if someone would use the nuclear option in a particular circumstance that they would use it in any circumstance. I doubt very much that Putin would use nukes in any situation other than one in which he felt there was no alternative, but I think the latter danger is real one. It makes no sense to simply dismiss it. We are not fighting WWII. We are fighting an enemy with a large nuclear arsenal.
    I disagree. And I'd appreciate an answer to the question I posed, as it is rather important. To put it another way: if you think Putin will use nukes 'if he felt there was no alternative', why would he not use them over Estonia? Lithuania? Poland?

    If he's mad enough to use them over Ukraine, he'd use them over those countries, as he sees large parts of Eastern Europe as 'his' land.

    I've never said that the threat from nukes is not real, or that it should be dismissed. I think the danger is largely over for their use in Ukraine (Russia has got used to losing), and there's the point that if we let our fear of his nukes stop us doing what is right now, he'll just use that fear again to get more.
    Russia has got used to losing: first it isn't losing and secondly I assume you have lived in the country for decades, speak the language fluently and are monitoring its media 24/7, if you are capable of assessing that it is getting used to it. Because I refuse to entertain for one second the alternative hypothesis that you are a windbag.
    Ha ha ha ha ha

    ;)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 22,564
    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying the Russian nuclear deterrent should not deter Ukraine or Nato, and if so, whither the British nuclear deterrent?
    It should deter Ukraine or NATO from launching an unprovoked attack on Russia.

    They haven't done so. Russia started the war.
    That is to misunderstand the theory of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear missiles were no-one's first resort, which is why we, Nato, Russia and everyone else has conventional forces.

    It is odd that advocates of Britain's nuclear deterrent seem under the illusion that Russia's nuclear arsenal will be ineffective.
    Maintaining nuclear weapons is very expensive.

    Remember Russian tyres in the first few weeks of the war? If Russian nukes have been subject to the same neglect, there is a high chance that most of them do not work, and may even be a threat mostly to those who seek to fire them.

    But with an estimated 6,000 nuclear warheads, even if they are 99% ineffective the result would be catastrophic.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,590
    edited June 28
    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying the Russian nuclear deterrent should not deter Ukraine or Nato, and if so, whither the British nuclear deterrent?
    It should deter Ukraine or NATO from launching an unprovoked attack on Russia.

    They haven't done so. Russia started the war.
    That is to misunderstand the theory of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear missiles were no-one's first resort, which is why we, Nato, Russia and everyone else has conventional forces.

    It is odd that advocates of Britain's nuclear deterrent seem under the illusion that Russia's nuclear arsenal will be ineffective.
    Maintaining nuclear weapons is very expensive.

    Remember Russian tyres in the first few weeks of the war? If Russian nukes have been subject to the same neglect, there is a high chance that most of them do not work, and may even be a threat mostly to those who seek to fire them.

    How many nuclear weapons would need to fail before cities stop disappearing? All of them? Since nuclear weapons require regular maintenance, it is unlikely they'd simply degrade away like tires left to bake in the sun for decades.

    And if 95 per cent of Russia's nuclear weapons fail, the working five per cent is still as big if not bigger than Britain's stockpile.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60564123
  • eekeek Posts: 21,107
    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying the Russian nuclear deterrent should not deter Ukraine or Nato, and if so, whither the British nuclear deterrent?
    It should deter Ukraine or NATO from launching an unprovoked attack on Russia.

    They haven't done so. Russia started the war.
    That is to misunderstand the theory of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear missiles were no-one's first resort, which is why we, Nato, Russia and everyone else has conventional forces.

    It is odd that advocates of Britain's nuclear deterrent seem under the illusion that Russia's nuclear arsenal will be ineffective.
    Maintaining nuclear weapons is very expensive.

    Remember Russian tyres in the first few weeks of the war? If Russian nukes have been subject to the same neglect, there is a high chance that most of them do not work, and may even be a threat mostly to those who seek to fire them.

    The thing there is, they have lots of brand new nukes.
    That doesn't mean the brand new nukes are in a working condition - its probably very easy to have a nuke that looks 100% working but has something missing that stops it actually working.

    After all how likely are you to be around to be punished were it actually used and discovered to be broken..
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,243
    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying the Russian nuclear deterrent should not deter Ukraine or Nato, and if so, whither the British nuclear deterrent?
    It should deter Ukraine or NATO from launching an unprovoked attack on Russia.

    They haven't done so. Russia started the war.
    That is to misunderstand the theory of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear missiles were no-one's first resort, which is why we, Nato, Russia and everyone else has conventional forces.

    It is odd that advocates of Britain's nuclear deterrent seem under the illusion that Russia's nuclear arsenal will be ineffective.
    Maintaining nuclear weapons is very expensive.

    Remember Russian tyres in the first few weeks of the war? If Russian nukes have been subject to the same neglect, there is a high chance that most of them do not work, and may even be a threat mostly to those who seek to fire them.

    I took the tyre guy off my twitter war list, he doesn't seem like a reliable commentator. Maybe he'd be OK if he stuck to tyres, not sure.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,013
    HYUFD said:

    These odds are ludicrous given DeSantis will lose the Florida governorship 49% to 51% in November to likely Democrat candidate Charlie Crist on the latest poll.

    If he cannot even get re elected as Florida governor he has zero chance of the GOP nomination and Presidency in 2024.
    http://thelistenergroup.com/charlie-crist-leading-ron-desantis-in-very-close-race/

    Instead, Trump if he decides to run again, Pence running on a hard pro life platform and Haley would be the likely main candidates for the GOP nomination, perhaps with Ted Cruz

    These are one of those rare moments - like 7 planets lining up on a single axis - where I find myself somewhat in agreement with HYUFD.

    DeSantis won the governorship by 0.4%, 32,463 votes. Yet he is talked up in the press like he's a political colossus - bestriding Florida.

    The upcoming election is hugely loseable for him but his expectation management is shit so another close win for him would be seen as a failure.

    (That said if forced to bet I would bet on him retaining - there was a fairly large Dem skew to the 2020 polling and I don't think the polling companies have really done anything to fix that)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 22,564
    edited June 28
    HYUFD said:

    These odds are ludicrous given DeSantis will lose the Florida governorship 49% to 51% in November to likely Democrat candidate Charlie Crist on the latest poll.

    If he cannot even get re elected as Florida governor he has zero chance of the GOP nomination and Presidency in 2024.
    http://thelistenergroup.com/charlie-crist-leading-ron-desantis-in-very-close-race/

    Instead, Trump if he decides to run again, Pence running on a hard pro life platform and Haley would be the likely main candidates for the GOP nomination, perhaps with Ted Cruz

    How do you translate a 1% poll lead for Christ, which follows a 1% poll lead for DeSantis (according to 538) into:

    ...DeSantis will lose the Florida governorship 49% to 51% in November...?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 22,564
    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying the Russian nuclear deterrent should not deter Ukraine or Nato, and if so, whither the British nuclear deterrent?
    It should deter Ukraine or NATO from launching an unprovoked attack on Russia.

    They haven't done so. Russia started the war.
    That is to misunderstand the theory of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear missiles were no-one's first resort, which is why we, Nato, Russia and everyone else has conventional forces.

    It is odd that advocates of Britain's nuclear deterrent seem under the illusion that Russia's nuclear arsenal will be ineffective.
    Maintaining nuclear weapons is very expensive.

    Remember Russian tyres in the first few weeks of the war? If Russian nukes have been subject to the same neglect, there is a high chance that most of them do not work, and may even be a threat mostly to those who seek to fire them.

    The thing there is, they have lots of brand new nukes.
    And one nuke is too many really.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,489
    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying the Russian nuclear deterrent should not deter Ukraine or Nato, and if so, whither the British nuclear deterrent?
    It should deter Ukraine or NATO from launching an unprovoked attack on Russia.

    They haven't done so. Russia started the war.
    That is to misunderstand the theory of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear missiles were no-one's first resort, which is why we, Nato, Russia and everyone else has conventional forces.

    It is odd that advocates of Britain's nuclear deterrent seem under the illusion that Russia's nuclear arsenal will be ineffective.
    Maintaining nuclear weapons is very expensive.

    Remember Russian tyres in the first few weeks of the war? If Russian nukes have been subject to the same neglect, there is a high chance that most of them do not work, and may even be a threat mostly to those who seek to fire them.

    The thing there is, they have lots of brand new nukes.
    That doesn't mean the brand new nukes are in a working condition - its probably very easy to have a nuke that looks 100% working but has something missing that stops it actually working.

    After all how likely are you to be around to be punished were it actually used and discovered to be broken..
    Not impossible but I wouldn't be making plans based on that sort of assumption
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,349
    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying the Russian nuclear deterrent should not deter Ukraine or Nato, and if so, whither the British nuclear deterrent?
    It should deter Ukraine or NATO from launching an unprovoked attack on Russia.

    They haven't done so. Russia started the war.
    That is to misunderstand the theory of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear missiles were no-one's first resort, which is why we, Nato, Russia and everyone else has conventional forces.

    It is odd that advocates of Britain's nuclear deterrent seem under the illusion that Russia's nuclear arsenal will be ineffective.
    Maintaining nuclear weapons is very expensive.

    Remember Russian tyres in the first few weeks of the war? If Russian nukes have been subject to the same neglect, there is a high chance that most of them do not work, and may even be a threat mostly to those who seek to fire them.

    For anyone interested in the situation in Ukraine and Russia wrt nukes, Perun did a long-from video on them a couple of months ago. IMO well worth a watch.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxOO0hCCSk4
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    What's wrong with taking your children to drag shows? That's the Florida panto season fucked. America is such a mess if this guy is being touted as the sane alternative to Trump.

    There’s nothing wrong with taking *your* children to a panto.

    There’s a lot wrong with schools staging for children what appear to be very adult-themed and sexually provocative drag shows, without asking parents first.
    Do you have a reliable news source for that, because it sounds like complete bollocks.
    We took our kids to a drag show at the Edinburgh Festival, it was very funny, sweet and had a positive message about letting people be who they want to be. I would have had no problem at all if the kids' school had taken them to see it. The only blatant ideological indoctrination that our daughter's primary school indulged in recently was around the Jubilee.
    There have been a few stories in the US: these are not pantomimes, but adult drag shows performed to kids, organised by LGBT…. groups as part of “Pride Month”. The criticism is that the performances are not age-appropriate for the audience. One took place in a 21+ strip club in the afternoon.

    Some links from neutral news sources:
    https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/local/ankeny/2022/05/25/ankeny-high-school-drag-show-under-investigation-negative-social-media/9926324002/
    https://www.westernjournal.com/school-drag-show-sparks-major-investigation-staff-placed-leave/
    https://go2tutors.com/iowa-school-drag-show/

    There was this one in the UK a couple of months ago.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8038669/Furious-parents-slam-primary-school-drag-queen-Flowjob-read-pupils-young-four.html
    I thought the request was for a reliable news source, and you're quoting from the Mail?

    Anyway, what's the issue with someone doing a reading who happens to have sexually explicit stuff on their social media platform? I wouldn't let my eight year old on Facebook, let alone a four year old, unless the sexually explicit stuff was brought into the classroom (it wasn't) so frigging what if its elsewhere on the internet?
    High school children need to engage with "adult themes". It is called getting an education.
    A lot of the reporting on this kind of stuff is click baity nonsense based on half truths, hearsay and prejudice. There was a Sunday Times article at the weekend about BLM themed PSHE lessons at our kids' school, for instance, that was completely incorrect, but of course all good content for the global war on woke being waged by the Murdoch propaganda machine. Who cares if teachers get traduced and schools get damaged in the process, right?
    Well indeed, a lot of this is either direct untruths, or clickbaity insinuation and halftruths - typically where people already have an axe to grind.

    Its ironic too that some of the people who would be first to be (rightly) outraged at the Islamic protestors outside schools in Birmingham etc intimidating teachers, are entirely happy to see such blatant bollocks by the media intimidating or twisting perfectly appropriate materials into something they're not.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,504
    @TheScreamingEagles you can scroll down on an iPhone by selecting some text and then pulling the text selection downwards. It’s annoying but it works.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,479

    HYUFD said:

    These odds are ludicrous given DeSantis will lose the Florida governorship 49% to 51% in November to likely Democrat candidate Charlie Crist on the latest poll.

    If he cannot even get re elected as Florida governor he has zero chance of the GOP nomination and Presidency in 2024.
    http://thelistenergroup.com/charlie-crist-leading-ron-desantis-in-very-close-race/

    Instead, Trump if he decides to run again, Pence running on a hard pro life platform and Haley would be the likely main candidates for the GOP nomination, perhaps with Ted Cruz

    How do you translate a 1% poll lead for Christ, which follows a 1% poll lead for DeSantis (according to 538) into:

    ...DeSantis will lose the Florida governorship 49% to 51% in November...?
    I can't believe I am doing this, but I am going to defend @hyufd's statement because he qualified it by also saying 'on the latest poll' and also started the next sentence with 'If he can not get elected'.

    So I think his statement is valid. That does not mean he does not think it is a tight 50:50 race.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    There is of course the precedent of Jeb Bush who was seen as another potential Republican nominee until he lost the Governor election, and then faded into obscurity.

    I think DeSantis knows that Trump, if he truly saw him as a threat, could probably dissuade enough voters from voting for DeSantis where it could make a difference. So expect DeSantis to show fealty to Trump and that's likely to include not running in 2024 if Trump runs.
    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    These odds are ludicrous given DeSantis will lose the Florida governorship 49% to 51% in November to likely Democrat candidate Charlie Crist on the latest poll.

    If he cannot even get re elected as Florida governor he has zero chance of the GOP nomination and Presidency in 2024.
    http://thelistenergroup.com/charlie-crist-leading-ron-desantis-in-very-close-race/

    Instead, Trump if he decides to run again, Pence running on a hard pro life platform and Haley would be the likely main candidates for the GOP nomination, perhaps with Ted Cruz

    These are one of those rare moments - like 7 planets lining up on a single axis - where I find myself somewhat in agreement with HYUFD.

    DeSantis won the governorship by 0.4%, 32,463 votes. Yet he is talked up in the press like he's a political colossus - bestriding Florida.

    The upcoming election is hugely loseable for him but his expectation management is shit so another close win for him would be seen as a failure.

    (That said if forced to bet I would bet on him retaining - there was a fairly large Dem skew to the 2020 polling and I don't think the polling companies have really done anything to fix that)
  • eek said:

    Good morning

    Looking at the voting on the NI protocol bill last night it passed 292/222, but 72 conservative mps and 36 labour mps abstained

    What a farce this is

    I'm not sure what you mean? Its possible some of those who abstained were paired (so equal and opposite). Its also a first reading, so many stages to go, at which point amendments and scrutiny will be greater.

    And ultimately its likely that this bill is an attempt to build pressure on the EU to meet the UK in the middle more than is currently the case over trade that is exclusively within the UK, where the EU really should have no say whatever, but is currently intervening with stringent checks that are causing harms to some businesses.
    The only reason the EU has a say is because Bozo the clown gave them a say by moving the border...
    Completely untrue.

    Had May's godawful backstop been in place then the EU would have a say over the whole of the UK, not just NI - and as Cox said there would be no way to end that legally under international law and doing so illegally would have resulted in the whole UK facing the worst fears of a No Deal Brexit while simultaneously breaking international law to get it.

    At least with Boris's deal the UK got out, even if other arrangements for NI were agreed, and breaking the agreement only means moving NI from alignment with the EU to alignment with the rest of the UK, rather than an entirely novel arrangement coming in overnight for the entire country, from scratch.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 103,034

    HYUFD said:

    These odds are ludicrous given DeSantis will lose the Florida governorship 49% to 51% in November to likely Democrat candidate Charlie Crist on the latest poll.

    If he cannot even get re elected as Florida governor he has zero chance of the GOP nomination and Presidency in 2024.
    http://thelistenergroup.com/charlie-crist-leading-ron-desantis-in-very-close-race/

    Instead, Trump if he decides to run again, Pence running on a hard pro life platform and Haley would be the likely main candidates for the GOP nomination, perhaps with Ted Cruz

    How do you translate a 1% poll lead for Christ, which follows a 1% poll lead for DeSantis (according to 538) into:

    ...DeSantis will lose the Florida governorship 49% to 51% in November...?
    The poll before had Crist ahead 48% to 47%, if DeSantis is going to have the fight of his life to be re elected and on the latest polling would lose (taken before the SC ruling in pro choice Florida too) then as I said he has zero chance of the GOP nomination in 2024

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/full-throttle-florida-legislature-making-ron-desantis-gop-juggernaut-rcna31186
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 22,564

    HYUFD said:

    These odds are ludicrous given DeSantis will lose the Florida governorship 49% to 51% in November to likely Democrat candidate Charlie Crist on the latest poll.

    If he cannot even get re elected as Florida governor he has zero chance of the GOP nomination and Presidency in 2024.
    http://thelistenergroup.com/charlie-crist-leading-ron-desantis-in-very-close-race/

    Instead, Trump if he decides to run again, Pence running on a hard pro life platform and Haley would be the likely main candidates for the GOP nomination, perhaps with Ted Cruz

    How do you translate a 1% poll lead for Christ, which follows a 1% poll lead for DeSantis (according to 538) into:

    ...DeSantis will lose the Florida governorship 49% to 51% in November...?
    Only a 1% poll lead for Christ is disappointing.

    Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.
    Yes, sorry about that. Autocorrect evangelising again!
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,386
    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:



    The British Army is 80k people, plus 50k reservists. How many will we send, 30k or so? That’s one hell of a movement.

    30,000 would be three divisions. There are only two Armoured/Infantry divisions in the entire army! (1st and 3rd). One of those isn't deployable because it's basically just a home for wayward infantry regiments.

    It would be Brigade strength at best so 5-6,000 mounted on a ramshackle assortment of CR2, CVR(T), FV430s and Bulldog/Jackal. It would also severely impeded the effort to commit the scheduled high readiness Mech/Armoured Brigade to NATO as scheduled in 2024 and that endeavour was already hanging on a shoogly peg.

    The NATO 300,000 figure is just a change in readniness status for existing formations. It doesn't generate any new units or move any existing ones.
    One thing I find bizarre is military numbering. Why have two divisions and call them 1 and 3?

    We have 633 squadron, but where are the other 632 squadrons?

    The Americans have the 82nd Airborne, but what happened to the other 81? Etc etc...
    One of the biggest examples of keeping heritage numbers happened in the RAF from 1996 to 2000, with Vulgar Fraction Group.

    Back in WWII, the fighter Wings were organised into many Groups, each with responsibility for a sector. 11 Group covered the south-east, and were the front line and bore the brunt of the Battle of Britain.
    18 Group covered the Atlantic and were key in the Battle of the Atlantic.

    Following cutbacks, eventually what was once Fighter Command devolved into being just 11 Group (as it became Group-sized and was the number they last wanted to retire) and what was once Coastal Command became 18 Group. And then, following the Cold War cuts, they could only have one Group of fast-jets within Strike Command.

    So they called it 11/18 Group. Also known within the RAF as "vulgar fraction Group."

    It didn't last long. Nowadays, it's 1 Group, which is more logical.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 22,564
    edited June 28
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    These odds are ludicrous given DeSantis will lose the Florida governorship 49% to 51% in November to likely Democrat candidate Charlie Crist on the latest poll.

    If he cannot even get re elected as Florida governor he has zero chance of the GOP nomination and Presidency in 2024.
    http://thelistenergroup.com/charlie-crist-leading-ron-desantis-in-very-close-race/

    Instead, Trump if he decides to run again, Pence running on a hard pro life platform and Haley would be the likely main candidates for the GOP nomination, perhaps with Ted Cruz

    How do you translate a 1% poll lead for Christ, which follows a 1% poll lead for DeSantis (according to 538) into:

    ...DeSantis will lose the Florida governorship 49% to 51% in November...?
    The poll before had Crist ahead 48% to 47%, if DeSantis is going to have the fight of his life to be re elected and on the latest polling would lose (taken before the SC ruling in pro choice Florida too) then as I said he has zero chance of the GOP nomination in 2024

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/full-throttle-florida-legislature-making-ron-desantis-gop-juggernaut-rcna31186
    I respect your view @HYUFD, and hope you turn out to be right, but you do have a tendency to translate polls into predictions too literally.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 43,125
    .
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    These odds are ludicrous given DeSantis will lose the Florida governorship 49% to 51% in November to likely Democrat candidate Charlie Crist on the latest poll.

    If he cannot even get re elected as Florida governor he has zero chance of the GOP nomination and Presidency in 2024.
    http://thelistenergroup.com/charlie-crist-leading-ron-desantis-in-very-close-race/

    Instead, Trump if he decides to run again, Pence running on a hard pro life platform and Haley would be the likely main candidates for the GOP nomination, perhaps with Ted Cruz

    How do you translate a 1% poll lead for Christ, which follows a 1% poll lead for DeSantis (according to 538) into:

    ...DeSantis will lose the Florida governorship 49% to 51% in November...?
    The poll before had Crist ahead 48% to 47%, if DeSantis is going to have the fight of his life to be re elected and on the latest polling would lose (taken before the SC ruling in pro choice Florida too) then as I said he has zero chance of the GOP nomination in 2024

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/full-throttle-florida-legislature-making-ron-desantis-gop-juggernaut-rcna31186
    Who would be the alternate front runner against Trump ?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,173
    Dura_Ace said:

    algarkirk said:

    Three questions.

    1) I am way behind the curve in US politics. Does De Santis - plainly not a liberal lefty etc - share the same anti democratic/Germany 1930s tendencies as Trump?

    At least better at hiding it.
    As others have said, not really. De Santis comes without some of the Trump personal baggage, but he’s arguably even more proto-fascist in other ways.

  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,127

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:



    The British Army is 80k people, plus 50k reservists. How many will we send, 30k or so? That’s one hell of a movement.

    30,000 would be three divisions. There are only two Armoured/Infantry divisions in the entire army! (1st and 3rd). One of those isn't deployable because it's basically just a home for wayward infantry regiments.

    It would be Brigade strength at best so 5-6,000 mounted on a ramshackle assortment of CR2, CVR(T), FV430s and Bulldog/Jackal. It would also severely impeded the effort to commit the scheduled high readiness Mech/Armoured Brigade to NATO as scheduled in 2024 and that endeavour was already hanging on a shoogly peg.

    The NATO 300,000 figure is just a change in readniness status for existing formations. It doesn't generate any new units or move any existing ones.
    One thing I find bizarre is military numbering. Why have two divisions and call them 1 and 3?

    We have 633 squadron, but where are the other 632 squadrons?

    The Americans have the 82nd Airborne, but what happened to the other 81? Etc etc...
    One of the biggest examples of keeping heritage numbers happened in the RAF from 1996 to 2000, with Vulgar Fraction Group.

    Back in WWII, the fighter Wings were organised into many Groups, each with responsibility for a sector. 11 Group covered the south-east, and were the front line and bore the brunt of the Battle of Britain.
    18 Group covered the Atlantic and were key in the Battle of the Atlantic.

    Following cutbacks, eventually what was once Fighter Command devolved into being just 11 Group (as it became Group-sized and was the number they last wanted to retire) and what was once Coastal Command became 18 Group. And then, following the Cold War cuts, they could only have one Group of fast-jets within Strike Command.

    So they called it 11/18 Group. Also known within the RAF as "vulgar fraction Group."

    It didn't last long. Nowadays, it's 1 Group, which is more logical.
    Yep. I guess they were forced to go decimal and, as the Air Vice-Marshal saw it, there was only room for one signficant figure so they rounded up to 1? :wink:
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,173
    DavidL said:

    pigeon said:

    Now is the Summer of our discontent...

    Doctors have thrown down the gauntlet to the government by calling for a pay rise of up to 30% over the next five years, in a move that increases the chances of strike action.

    Delegates at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) annual conference voted to press ministers to agree to the increase to make up for real-terms cuts to their salaries over the last 14 years.


    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/27/uk-doctors-demand-pay-rise-of-up-to-30-over-five-years

    It's very difficult to see where the space for compromise is in this situation. The medics have effectively had a huge real terms pay cut since the GFC. They want the whole lot back; the Government wants their wages to continue shrinking for the foreseeable.

    The imminent prospect of industrial action all over the NHS is awkward for the Government, but this and other disputes are going to leave Keir Starmer's fence sitting arse so full of splinters that he won't be able to sit down for months unless he chooses a side. If Labour makes wishy-washy noises about negotiations and nothing else then it will be assumed by angry unions and watching members of the general public alike that it is either entirely clueless, or that it basically agrees with the pay austerity stance of the Conservatives.

    Doubtless the Opposition wants to avoid doing detail before an election campaign in case it finds its ideas being nicked, but public sector pay disputes are happening right now, not in 2024, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask what Labour's approach to these demands is. What criteria do they think are reasonable for calculating pay increments - or are they in the "you get fuck all regardless" camp with the current Government?

    There is a shortage of doctors so the classic market approach might be to pay more, whether it compensates for inflation and previous cuts or not. In any case, the claim appears to be 30 per cent over five years which leaves plenty of room for fudge.
    Given the way that the BoE let the inflation genie loose and how we are all going to be so astonished when it doesn't prove to be a temporary bubble after all but much more persistent throughout next year the odds seem to favour the doctors getting their 30% over the next 5 years without any industrial action at all.

    And it is troubling that they want to get back what they have lost in the period of wage restraint since the GFC. The reason that we had such wage restraint is that the country was living well beyond its means in 2008 sustained by what proved to be illusionary profits from financial services. They are not alone in making this point; the barristers are making the same claim in their dispute. But we cannot go back to what we were earning in 2008 without very substantial improvements in productivity to pay for it. And I am seeing little evidence of that, indeed with remaining Covid protocols quite probably the reverse.
    Given those illusionary profits from financial services, one would hope to see the barrister or doctor wage to financial services wage ratio improve.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,173
    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    What's wrong with taking your children to drag shows? That's the Florida panto season fucked. America is such a mess if this guy is being touted as the sane alternative to Trump.

    There’s nothing wrong with taking *your* children to a panto.

    There’s a lot wrong with schools staging for children what appear to be very adult-themed and sexually provocative drag shows, without asking parents first.
    Do you have a reliable news source for that, because it sounds like complete bollocks.
    We took our kids to a drag show at the Edinburgh Festival, it was very funny, sweet and had a positive message about letting people be who they want to be. I would have had no problem at all if the kids' school had taken them to see it. The only blatant ideological indoctrination that our daughter's primary school indulged in recently was around the Jubilee.
    I thought pantomimes WERE drag shows?
    They don't have pantos in America because they are terrified of sex, even while being utterly desensitised to violence. It is a very weird culture.
    Anyone who watches panto in this country but accuses others of being weird is, just possibly, lacking insight. Looked at objectively our panto is....weird.
    It may be weird, but it’s hard to see it as being dangerous to children.

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,161

    Vanilla is having one its quirks.

    It won’t let you scroll down to the bottom of a post on an iPhone.

    To confuse the enemy. You don’t want to give them an idea of your strength.

    FUSAG was great at that.

    Sometimes formations get reflagged. The 82nd Airborne Division was originally the 82nd Infantry Division.

    Sometimes the number is to honour past formations, we have 16 Air Assault Brigade but we don’t Air Assault Brigades 1 to 15. The 16 comes from having the lineages of the 1st and 6th Airborne Divisions.

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:



    The British Army is 80k people, plus 50k reservists. How many will we send, 30k or so? That’s one hell of a movement.

    30,000 would be three divisions. There are only two Armoured/Infantry divisions in the entire army! (1st and 3rd). One of those isn't deployable because it's basically just a home for wayward infantry regiments.

    It would be Brigade strength at best so 5-6,000 mounted on a ramshackle assortment of CR2, CVR(T), FV430s and Bulldog/Jackal. It would also severely impeded the effort to commit the scheduled high readiness Mech/Armoured Brigade to NATO as scheduled in 2024 and that endeavour was already hanging on a shoogly peg.

    The NATO 300,000 figure is just a change in readniness status for existing formations. It doesn't generate any new units or move any existing ones.
    One thing I find bizarre is military numbering. Why have two divisions and call them 1 and 3?

    We have 633 squadron, but where are the other 632 squadrons?

    The Americans have the 82nd Airborne, but what happened to the other 81? Etc etc...
    Why have you suddenly switched to Plato-esque commenting above the quoted matter? We should all stick to the same convention, whether above or below, or chaos will result.
    Use Android instead :lol:
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,210

    Cicero said:

    It is currently 34 degrees C in Tallinn, and the airless atmosphere spells heavy thunder later on. The political atmosphere is also pretty thundery, with slow progress being made to construct a new coalition. The principle sticking points are education and tax rates, but after the pause for the four day midsummer holiday, it now looks like the Conservative Isamaa party are ready to join the Social Democrats and the Reform (Liberal) Party of PM Kaja Kallas in a solid coalition that will hold at least until the elections due on March 5th.

    Estonia now has over 44,000 Ukrainian refugees and still more are set to come. We hear terrible stories of barbaric cruelty. The vermin responsible for these crimes should be sought to the ends of the earth for what they have done. The destruction of the shopping centre has only underlined to Estonian population, Russian and Estonian speaking alike, that there will be no mercy shown if the Putinists unleash their fury on the Baltic. Preparations are still being made. Bomb shelters are being set up in underground carparks, and the signs for these have appeared, even here in the Old Town of Tallinn.

    Yet, there is no sense of fear. Rather of cold rage and grim determination. The armed forces are on early warning for alert, but as Kaja said the other day, even a few days of Russian occupation could cause so much death and destruction that Estonia as we know it would not survive. The determination now is not to let the Putinists in at all. NATO preparations need to be accelerated. The point must be to accept that any direct challenge to NATO will be met with overwhelming force from the onset. Ministers of various allied countries come and go, and as with the coalition talks, it seems that solid, if slow, progress is being made.

    It is increasingly clear that the breach with Putin´s Russia is irreparable. There is zero chance that any deal he offers or agrees will hold. However, in addition to the poor performance of the Russian armed forces, there is now the growing crisis in the Russian economy. It is not just the collapse in their international trade, it is also the growing question of the internal cohesion of the domestic Russian economy. Russian local governments seem to be trying to avoid their own local markets being plundered by the centre and delays in food shipments and partial trade bans now seem to be occuring.

    So, we watch and wait. The storm clouds in Russia are gathering. We only hope that a Russian cloudburst does not inundate us here.

    Cicero's 'Letters from Estonia' should definitely be collected and published once all this is over.

    Great stuff @Cicero - please keep posting!
    They are and are a salutary warning to those in Germany, France, and elsewhere who would appease Putin that the whole of Europe must stand united against this war criminal and not concede any territory to him at all
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,089
    DavidL said:

    Watched a very good documentary on Netflix last night called Overturning Roe. Although clearly favourable to the right to abortion it had many of the main players speaking very openly about their campaign and the techniques used. It also showed a scene in the 2016 election where Trump, at the final debate, won over the evangelicals which gave him the edge to win. Worth a watch if you haven't seen it.

    Two interesting articles on the legal / political reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decisions and one possible consequence: -

    1. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/roe-overturned-supreme-court-samuel-alito-opinion/661386/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20220627&utm_term=The Atlantic Daily
    2. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/06/anti-abortion-movement-dobbs-roe-overturned/661393/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20220627&utm_term=The Atlantic Daily
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,567
    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The one striking group I do have some sympathy with are the barristers. Their legal aid prep work should be chargeable to the taxpayer. The rate shouldn't be so high mind - maybe £15 per hour, they'll still earn the court time on top and have good pay going forward.

    £15 an hour for prep would result in them getting a whole lot more than they are asking for.

    Might give teachers ideas.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,479
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    These odds are ludicrous given DeSantis will lose the Florida governorship 49% to 51% in November to likely Democrat candidate Charlie Crist on the latest poll.

    If he cannot even get re elected as Florida governor he has zero chance of the GOP nomination and Presidency in 2024.
    http://thelistenergroup.com/charlie-crist-leading-ron-desantis-in-very-close-race/

    Instead, Trump if he decides to run again, Pence running on a hard pro life platform and Haley would be the likely main candidates for the GOP nomination, perhaps with Ted Cruz

    How do you translate a 1% poll lead for Christ, which follows a 1% poll lead for DeSantis (according to 538) into:

    ...DeSantis will lose the Florida governorship 49% to 51% in November...?
    I can't believe I am doing this, but I am going to defend @hyufd's statement because he qualified it by also saying 'on the latest poll' and also started the next sentence with 'If he can not get elected'.

    So I think his statement is valid. That does not mean he does not think it is a tight 50:50 race.
    I notice you liked my post @HYUFD . I give you such a hard time regarding your maths/logic that it would be rather churlish of me not to defend you when I think you have put all the appropriate logical qualifications into your statement of opinion. However if you had said 'may lose the Florida governorship' rather than 'will lose the Florida governorship' @Benpointer I'm sure would not have pulled you up and you would have made the same very valid observation.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,057
    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61961871

    46 immigrants dead in lorry in Texas

    That’s horrific, and just one incident of many.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 26,618

    @TheScreamingEagles you can scroll down on an iPhone by selecting some text and then pulling the text selection downwards. It’s annoying but it works.

    Another workaround. ‘Preview’ your comment before writing anything. Then ‘edit’ and type

    You are now in the correct place
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,089
    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    What's wrong with taking your children to drag shows? That's the Florida panto season fucked. America is such a mess if this guy is being touted as the sane alternative to Trump.

    There’s nothing wrong with taking *your* children to a panto.

    There’s a lot wrong with schools staging for children what appear to be very adult-themed and sexually provocative drag shows, without asking parents first.
    Do you have a reliable news source for that, because it sounds like complete bollocks.
    We took our kids to a drag show at the Edinburgh Festival, it was very funny, sweet and had a positive message about letting people be who they want to be. I would have had no problem at all if the kids' school had taken them to see it. The only blatant ideological indoctrination that our daughter's primary school indulged in recently was around the Jubilee.
    I thought pantomimes WERE drag shows?
    They don't have pantos in America because they are terrified of sex, even while being utterly desensitised to violence. It is a very weird culture.
    Anyone who watches panto in this country but accuses others of being weird is, just possibly, lacking insight. Looked at objectively our panto is....weird.
    Panto is in the long and honourable tradition of commedia dell'arte.

    There is no issue with drag shows provided the content is age appropriate and those providing them have been appropriately vetted as should be the case for anyone working with children. I am not sure that is always the case with some of the providers.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 10,385
    IshmaelZ said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Your initial premise is a complete non sequitur. It doesn't follow at all all that if someone would use the nuclear option in a particular circumstance that they would use it in any circumstance. I doubt very much that Putin would use nukes in any situation other than one in which he felt there was no alternative, but I think the latter danger is real one. It makes no sense to simply dismiss it. We are not fighting WWII. We are fighting an enemy with a large nuclear arsenal.
    I disagree. And I'd appreciate an answer to the question I posed, as it is rather important. To put it another way: if you think Putin will use nukes 'if he felt there was no alternative', why would he not use them over Estonia? Lithuania? Poland?

    If he's mad enough to use them over Ukraine, he'd use them over those countries, as he sees large parts of Eastern Europe as 'his' land.

    I've never said that the threat from nukes is not real, or that it should be dismissed. I think the danger is largely over for their use in Ukraine (Russia has got used to losing), and there's the point that if we let our fear of his nukes stop us doing what is right now, he'll just use that fear again to get more.
    Russia has got used to losing: first it isn't losing and secondly I assume you have lived in the country for decades, speak the language fluently and are monitoring its media 24/7, if you are capable of assessing that it is getting used to it. Because I refuse to entertain for one second the alternative hypothesis that you are a windbag.
    Amazing numbers of Russia and Scotland experts on this blog. Must be some statistical freak.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 47,341
    edited June 28
    I think DeSantis is a very smart political operator, and is not quite as doctrinaire as the header suggests.

    Florida, for example, was very early to remove mask mandates and other restrictions. On the other hand, (and up until quite recently) DeSantis made it very clear that Counties were free to enact their own restrictions, if required. You therefore had rural areas where it was like Covid didn't exist. But in Miami and other urban areas, the restrictions were not so very different to other large conurbations.

    Now, he slightly sullied his record here by - early this year - removing the ability of local areas to set their own standards, but there's no doubt that that nuanced effort allowed restrictions to be much better targeted than in many other States.

    DeSantis is - to be sure - playing up the culture wars in Florida. But is he really any different from any other moderately (but not extremely) right wing member of the Republican party, who (while I wouldn't agree with much of what he did), would be a 100x better than Trump.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,479
    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    What's wrong with taking your children to drag shows? That's the Florida panto season fucked. America is such a mess if this guy is being touted as the sane alternative to Trump.

    There’s nothing wrong with taking *your* children to a panto.

    There’s a lot wrong with schools staging for children what appear to be very adult-themed and sexually provocative drag shows, without asking parents first.
    Do you have a reliable news source for that, because it sounds like complete bollocks.
    We took our kids to a drag show at the Edinburgh Festival, it was very funny, sweet and had a positive message about letting people be who they want to be. I would have had no problem at all if the kids' school had taken them to see it. The only blatant ideological indoctrination that our daughter's primary school indulged in recently was around the Jubilee.
    I thought pantomimes WERE drag shows?
    They don't have pantos in America because they are terrified of sex, even while being utterly desensitised to violence. It is a very weird culture.
    Anyone who watches panto in this country but accuses others of being weird is, just possibly, lacking insight. Looked at objectively our panto is....weird.
    I've tried explaining what panto is to Americans on numerous occasions and always failed miserably.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 26,332

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    I wonder what mandate the head of a party sub branch that has fought every single election since 2014 on the promise that voting for them will stop indy ref 2 and lost by a distance every time feels he has?

    If wee Dougie & Co follow through on the 'we're no playing' gambit it'll be great entertainment to see them trying to observe omerta while dying to spout Project Fear 347.
    And remember the impact of the Strathclyde referendum on water? Much decried as a pretend referendum, it had a huge impact on Scots politics ever since. No Tory has dared to sell off Loch Katrine etc. since.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,479

    IshmaelZ said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Your initial premise is a complete non sequitur. It doesn't follow at all all that if someone would use the nuclear option in a particular circumstance that they would use it in any circumstance. I doubt very much that Putin would use nukes in any situation other than one in which he felt there was no alternative, but I think the latter danger is real one. It makes no sense to simply dismiss it. We are not fighting WWII. We are fighting an enemy with a large nuclear arsenal.
    I disagree. And I'd appreciate an answer to the question I posed, as it is rather important. To put it another way: if you think Putin will use nukes 'if he felt there was no alternative', why would he not use them over Estonia? Lithuania? Poland?

    If he's mad enough to use them over Ukraine, he'd use them over those countries, as he sees large parts of Eastern Europe as 'his' land.

    I've never said that the threat from nukes is not real, or that it should be dismissed. I think the danger is largely over for their use in Ukraine (Russia has got used to losing), and there's the point that if we let our fear of his nukes stop us doing what is right now, he'll just use that fear again to get more.
    Russia has got used to losing: first it isn't losing and secondly I assume you have lived in the country for decades, speak the language fluently and are monitoring its media 24/7, if you are capable of assessing that it is getting used to it. Because I refuse to entertain for one second the alternative hypothesis that you are a windbag.
    Amazing numbers of Russia and Scotland experts on this blog. Must be some statistical freak.
    I know bugger all about either if that helps the balance (and I have a Scottish wife)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 103,034
    Nigelb said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    These odds are ludicrous given DeSantis will lose the Florida governorship 49% to 51% in November to likely Democrat candidate Charlie Crist on the latest poll.

    If he cannot even get re elected as Florida governor he has zero chance of the GOP nomination and Presidency in 2024.
    http://thelistenergroup.com/charlie-crist-leading-ron-desantis-in-very-close-race/

    Instead, Trump if he decides to run again, Pence running on a hard pro life platform and Haley would be the likely main candidates for the GOP nomination, perhaps with Ted Cruz

    How do you translate a 1% poll lead for Christ, which follows a 1% poll lead for DeSantis (according to 538) into:

    ...DeSantis will lose the Florida governorship 49% to 51% in November...?
    The poll before had Crist ahead 48% to 47%, if DeSantis is going to have the fight of his life to be re elected and on the latest polling would lose (taken before the SC ruling in pro choice Florida too) then as I said he has zero chance of the GOP nomination in 2024

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/full-throttle-florida-legislature-making-ron-desantis-gop-juggernaut-rcna31186
    Who would be the alternate front runner against Trump ?
    Pence
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 10,385

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    I wonder what mandate the head of a party sub branch that has fought every single election since 2014 on the promise that voting for them will stop indy ref 2 and lost by a distance every time feels he has?

    If wee Dougie & Co follow through on the 'we're no playing' gambit it'll be great entertainment to see them trying to observe omerta while dying to spout Project Fear 347.
    Don’t tell me: the Unionists haven’t thought this one through? I’ll try to do a surprised face.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,543
    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61961871

    46 immigrants dead in lorry in Texas

    That’s horrific, and just one incident of many.
    240,000 people were caught trying to illegally enter the US in May alone. With the numbers at a record level tragedy is almost inevitable.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 10,385
    kjh said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Your initial premise is a complete non sequitur. It doesn't follow at all all that if someone would use the nuclear option in a particular circumstance that they would use it in any circumstance. I doubt very much that Putin would use nukes in any situation other than one in which he felt there was no alternative, but I think the latter danger is real one. It makes no sense to simply dismiss it. We are not fighting WWII. We are fighting an enemy with a large nuclear arsenal.
    I disagree. And I'd appreciate an answer to the question I posed, as it is rather important. To put it another way: if you think Putin will use nukes 'if he felt there was no alternative', why would he not use them over Estonia? Lithuania? Poland?

    If he's mad enough to use them over Ukraine, he'd use them over those countries, as he sees large parts of Eastern Europe as 'his' land.

    I've never said that the threat from nukes is not real, or that it should be dismissed. I think the danger is largely over for their use in Ukraine (Russia has got used to losing), and there's the point that if we let our fear of his nukes stop us doing what is right now, he'll just use that fear again to get more.
    Russia has got used to losing: first it isn't losing and secondly I assume you have lived in the country for decades, speak the language fluently and are monitoring its media 24/7, if you are capable of assessing that it is getting used to it. Because I refuse to entertain for one second the alternative hypothesis that you are a windbag.
    Amazing numbers of Russia and Scotland experts on this blog. Must be some statistical freak.
    I know bugger all about either if that helps the balance (and I have a Scottish wife)
    Ta.

    One honest admission down. Five thousand ten hundred and forty one to go…
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 103,034

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    I wonder what mandate the head of a party sub branch that has fought every single election since 2014 on the promise that voting for them will stop indy ref 2 and lost by a distance every time feels he has?

    If wee Dougie & Co follow through on the 'we're no playing' gambit it'll be great entertainment to see them trying to observe omerta while dying to spout Project Fear 347.
    The only mandate needed is the Tory majority at Westminster to respect the once in a generation vote.

    The UK government will therefore continue to refuse an official indyref2, tell Unionists to boycott any unofficial referendum and completely ignore the result, just as their conservative cousins in Spain did in 2017 with the unofficial Catalan independence referendum.

    The future of the Union is reserved to Westminster and the UK government alone
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,691
    edited June 28
    rcs1000 said:

    I think DeSantis is a very smart political operator, and is not quite as doctrinaire as the header suggests.

    Florida, for example, was very early to remove mask mandates and other restrictions. On the other hand, (and up until quite recently) DeSantis made it very clear that Counties were free to enact their own restrictions, if required. You therefore had rural areas where it was like Covid didn't exist. But in Miami and other urban areas, the restrictions were not so very different to other large conurbations.

    Now, he slightly sullied his record here by - early this year - removing the ability of local areas to set their own standards, but there's no doubt that that nuanced effort allowed restrictions to be much better targeted than in many other States.

    DeSantis is - to be sure - playing up the culture wars in Florida. But is he really any different from any other moderately (but not extremely) right wing member of the Republican party, who (while I wouldn't agree with much of what he did), would be a 100x better than Trump.

    He sounds gruesome from my perspective but, yes, still many many times preferable to Trump coming back, which is not so much a Not Happening Event as a Must Not Happen Event. DeSantis would be a good betting result for me too. I've laid most of the GOP contenders apart from him - inc Trump quite heavily.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,057
    glw said:

    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61961871

    46 immigrants dead in lorry in Texas

    That’s horrific, and just one incident of many.
    240,000 people were caught trying to illegally enter the US in May alone. With the numbers at a record level tragedy is almost inevitable.
    That’s astonishing. If 240k people are being caught every month, then there must be many more getting through - with seemingly no way to stop the flow.

    Dare I say it, but perhaps the previous President had the right idea about building a physical border.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,325

    Cicero said:

    It is currently 34 degrees C in Tallinn, and the airless atmosphere spells heavy thunder later on. The political atmosphere is also pretty thundery, with slow progress being made to construct a new coalition. The principle sticking points are education and tax rates, but after the pause for the four day midsummer holiday, it now looks like the Conservative Isamaa party are ready to join the Social Democrats and the Reform (Liberal) Party of PM Kaja Kallas in a solid coalition that will hold at least until the elections due on March 5th.

    Estonia now has over 44,000 Ukrainian refugees and still more are set to come. We hear terrible stories of barbaric cruelty. The vermin responsible for these crimes should be sought to the ends of the earth for what they have done. The destruction of the shopping centre has only underlined to Estonian population, Russian and Estonian speaking alike, that there will be no mercy shown if the Putinists unleash their fury on the Baltic. Preparations are still being made. Bomb shelters are being set up in underground carparks, and the signs for these have appeared, even here in the Old Town of Tallinn.

    Yet, there is no sense of fear. Rather of cold rage and grim determination. The armed forces are on early warning for alert, but as Kaja said the other day, even a few days of Russian occupation could cause so much death and destruction that Estonia as we know it would not survive. The determination now is not to let the Putinists in at all. NATO preparations need to be accelerated. The point must be to accept that any direct challenge to NATO will be met with overwhelming force from the onset. Ministers of various allied countries come and go, and as with the coalition talks, it seems that solid, if slow, progress is being made.

    It is increasingly clear that the breach with Putin´s Russia is irreparable. There is zero chance that any deal he offers or agrees will hold. However, in addition to the poor performance of the Russian armed forces, there is now the growing crisis in the Russian economy. It is not just the collapse in their international trade, it is also the growing question of the internal cohesion of the domestic Russian economy. Russian local governments seem to be trying to avoid their own local markets being plundered by the centre and delays in food shipments and partial trade bans now seem to be occuring.

    So, we watch and wait. The storm clouds in Russia are gathering. We only hope that a Russian cloudburst does not inundate us here.

    Cicero's 'Letters from Estonia' should definitely be collected and published once all this is over.

    Great stuff @Cicero - please keep posting!
    They are and are a salutary warning to those in Germany, France, and elsewhere who would appease Putin that the whole of Europe must stand united against this war criminal and not concede any territory to him at all
    As good as no-one in Germany is appeasing Putin. I have no idea where you get that idea from. There are a few people in Die Linke who have a blanket "NATO=bad" opinion and who seem to forget that Russia is no longer the Soviet Union. And there is one Ex-Chancellor who has been defending his business links with Putin, who has been excommunicated from Berlin and pilloried in the media.

    Apart from that everyone is behind your opinion "that the whole of Europe must stand united against this war criminal and not concede any territory to him at all".

    It is valid to criticise the German government for being painfully slow at delivering promised arms to Ukraine, but to equate that with "appeasing Putin" is crazy.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 47,341
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    These odds are ludicrous given DeSantis will lose the Florida governorship 49% to 51% in November to likely Democrat candidate Charlie Crist on the latest poll.

    If he cannot even get re elected as Florida governor he has zero chance of the GOP nomination and Presidency in 2024.
    http://thelistenergroup.com/charlie-crist-leading-ron-desantis-in-very-close-race/

    Instead, Trump if he decides to run again, Pence running on a hard pro life platform and Haley would be the likely main candidates for the GOP nomination, perhaps with Ted Cruz

    How do you translate a 1% poll lead for Christ, which follows a 1% poll lead for DeSantis (according to 538) into:

    ...DeSantis will lose the Florida governorship 49% to 51% in November...?
    The poll before had Crist ahead 48% to 47%, if DeSantis is going to have the fight of his life to be re elected and on the latest polling would lose (taken before the SC ruling in pro choice Florida too) then as I said he has zero chance of the GOP nomination in 2024

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/full-throttle-florida-legislature-making-ron-desantis-gop-juggernaut-rcna31186
    It's hard to disagree with this: if DeSantis loses the Florida Gubernatorial race in what will be an excellent year for Republicans, then he will really struggle to win the Republican nomination. Florida is a must win State for the Republicans, and if DeSantis can't win that... then how does he win the Presidency?

    I would also note that Florida is very rare among red leaning US States - it's both pretty pro-Choice (more so than the average in the US), and a tight race. It also has a draft anti-abortion law modelled on Texas (with no exceptions for rape and incest) that is likely to come into force just ahead of the midterms.

    That's a potentially disastrous outcome for Florida Republicans. Simply, DeSantis could be sunk by the Supreme Court.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,127
    kjh said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Your initial premise is a complete non sequitur. It doesn't follow at all all that if someone would use the nuclear option in a particular circumstance that they would use it in any circumstance. I doubt very much that Putin would use nukes in any situation other than one in which he felt there was no alternative, but I think the latter danger is real one. It makes no sense to simply dismiss it. We are not fighting WWII. We are fighting an enemy with a large nuclear arsenal.
    I disagree. And I'd appreciate an answer to the question I posed, as it is rather important. To put it another way: if you think Putin will use nukes 'if he felt there was no alternative', why would he not use them over Estonia? Lithuania? Poland?

    If he's mad enough to use them over Ukraine, he'd use them over those countries, as he sees large parts of Eastern Europe as 'his' land.

    I've never said that the threat from nukes is not real, or that it should be dismissed. I think the danger is largely over for their use in Ukraine (Russia has got used to losing), and there's the point that if we let our fear of his nukes stop us doing what is right now, he'll just use that fear again to get more.
    Russia has got used to losing: first it isn't losing and secondly I assume you have lived in the country for decades, speak the language fluently and are monitoring its media 24/7, if you are capable of assessing that it is getting used to it. Because I refuse to entertain for one second the alternative hypothesis that you are a windbag.
    Amazing numbers of Russia and Scotland experts on this blog. Must be some statistical freak.
    I know bugger all about either if that helps the balance (and I have a Scottish wife)
    FWIW, I don't believe Scotland will use its nukes against us and if they try there's a fair chance they won't work anyway.

    An independent Russia also unlikely to be accepted into the EU in the near future.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 25,536
    Mid-Derbs Con MP Pauline Latham (who voted against PM in confidence vote) says time for cabinet to “push” PM out - says even if in event of 1922 rule change letters threshold met again “most PMs would then do the decent thing and resign but Boris won’t”, it’ll “fall on deaf ears”
    https://twitter.com/GeorgiaZemoreyR/status/1541715314433556480
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,750
    kjh said:

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    What's wrong with taking your children to drag shows? That's the Florida panto season fucked. America is such a mess if this guy is being touted as the sane alternative to Trump.

    There’s nothing wrong with taking *your* children to a panto.

    There’s a lot wrong with schools staging for children what appear to be very adult-themed and sexually provocative drag shows, without asking parents first.
    Do you have a reliable news source for that, because it sounds like complete bollocks.
    We took our kids to a drag show at the Edinburgh Festival, it was very funny, sweet and had a positive message about letting people be who they want to be. I would have had no problem at all if the kids' school had taken them to see it. The only blatant ideological indoctrination that our daughter's primary school indulged in recently was around the Jubilee.
    I thought pantomimes WERE drag shows?
    They don't have pantos in America because they are terrified of sex, even while being utterly desensitised to violence. It is a very weird culture.
    Anyone who watches panto in this country but accuses others of being weird is, just possibly, lacking insight. Looked at objectively our panto is....weird.
    I've tried explaining what panto is to Americans on numerous occasions and always failed miserably.
    We took my French sister in law to the Greenwich Panto one year. She was an instant convert.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,210
    edited June 28
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    I wonder what mandate the head of a party sub branch that has fought every single election since 2014 on the promise that voting for them will stop indy ref 2 and lost by a distance every time feels he has?

    If wee Dougie & Co follow through on the 'we're no playing' gambit it'll be great entertainment to see them trying to observe omerta while dying to spout Project Fear 347.
    The only mandate needed is the Tory majority at Westminster to respect the once in a generation vote.

    The UK government will therefore continue to refuse an official indyref2, tell Unionists to boycott any unofficial referendum and completely ignore the result, just as their conservative cousins in Spain did in 2017 with the unofficial Catalan independence referendum.

    The future of the Union is reserved to Westminster and the UK government alone
    It is not even that as labour and the lib dems are also opposed to indyref2, so even without a conservative government, which is increasingly likely, Westminster is not going to grant a section 30 agreement in years

    I would just add the Scots do no want one in the next few years either

    Just the nats being nats and have been so dating back to the 1950's when I lived in Berwick on Tweed and before
This discussion has been closed.