Conventional artillery shells are usually a waste of time (and artillery tubes) for the particular task.
Cheaper drones will obviously be developed to be much more lethal, since the cost- effectiveness is already so high. The future for armour looks much more constrained than now.
That's total arse. How do they get from an FPV Drone's chance of destroying an armoured target of 5-50% (which is clearly just made up) to concluding that only ONE shot is required?
There was a really good study, a while back, on how cheap certain “smart” weapons were, compared to their dumb conventional equivalents. I’ll try and find it - it was a thesis by a US officer.
It had a look at the cost of countermeasures as well.
The cost doesn't matter to the end user though as the best weapon in any particular situation is the one you have. The RAF put 7 x Paveway IV on an ISIS 'lair' in Iraq last week. By the time you've added in the Typhoon and tanker hours you're probably looking at half a million quid. Absolutely nobody involved ever hesitated for one second to evaluate if this was the best possible use of £500,000 of tax payers' cash.
Cost matters for any conflict like Ukraine where sustainability of munition supply becomes a factor. And it hasn’t stopped us sending Storm Shadows at c.£1m a unit (the fact we’ve got so many sitting in the shelf, we don’t use them very often, and it costs to keep them there is also a factor.)
Conventional artillery shells are usually a waste of time (and artillery tubes) for the particular task.
Cheaper drones will obviously be developed to be much more lethal, since the cost- effectiveness is already so high. The future for armour looks much more constrained than now.
That's total arse. How do they get from an FPV Drone's chance of destroying an armoured target of 5-50% (which is clearly just made up) to concluding that only ONE shot is required?
There was a really good study, a while back, on how cheap certain “smart” weapons were, compared to their dumb conventional equivalents. I’ll try and find it - it was a thesis by a US officer.
It had a look at the cost of countermeasures as well.
The cost doesn't matter to the end user though as the best weapon in any particular situation is the one you have. The RAF put 7 x Paveway IV on an ISIS 'lair' in Iraq last week. By the time you've added in the Typhoon and tanker hours you're probably looking at half a million quid. Absolutely nobody involved ever hesitated for one second to evaluate if this was the best possible use of £500,000 of tax payers' cash.
Cost matters for any conflict like Ukraine where sustainability of munition supply becomes a factor. And it hasn’t stopped us sending Storm Shadows at c.£1m a unit (the fact we’ve got so many sitting in the shelf, we don’t use them very often, and it costs to keep them there is also a factor.)
Cost does get factored in during procurement. Hence hi-lo mixes - NLAW and Javelin. The Charlie G* is making a comeback on the basis of ultra low cost per round.
*in the cadets, one lucky soul was allowed to fire a round. He was concussed for about a week.
Conventional artillery shells are usually a waste of time (and artillery tubes) for the particular task.
Cheaper drones will obviously be developed to be much more lethal, since the cost- effectiveness is already so high. The future for armour looks much more constrained than now.
That's total arse. How do they get from an FPV Drone's chance of destroying an armoured target of 5-50% (which is clearly just made up) to concluding that only ONE shot is required?
There was a really good study, a while back, on how cheap certain “smart” weapons were, compared to their dumb conventional equivalents. I’ll try and find it - it was a thesis by a US officer.
It had a look at the cost of countermeasures as well.
The cost doesn't matter to the end user though as the best weapon in any particular situation is the one you have. The RAF put 7 x Paveway IV on an ISIS 'lair' in Iraq last week. By the time you've added in the Typhoon and tanker hours you're probably looking at half a million quid. Absolutely nobody involved ever hesitated for one second to evaluate if this was the best possible use of £500,000 of tax payers' cash.
Cost matters for any conflict like Ukraine where sustainability of munition supply becomes a factor. And it hasn’t stopped us sending Storm Shadows at c.£1m a unit (the fact we’ve got so many sitting in the shelf, we don’t use them very often, and it costs to keep them there is also a factor.)
Cost matters even less in a conflict like the SMO as the constraint on both sides is manufacturing capacity not money. The US can print as many dollars as they want but they can only send as many 155mm rounds as they can make. Ditto RF with rubles/152mm.
Conventional artillery shells are usually a waste of time (and artillery tubes) for the particular task.
Cheaper drones will obviously be developed to be much more lethal, since the cost- effectiveness is already so high. The future for armour looks much more constrained than now.
That's total arse. How do they get from an FPV Drone's chance of destroying an armoured target of 5-50% (which is clearly just made up) to concluding that only ONE shot is required?
There was a really good study, a while back, on how cheap certain “smart” weapons were, compared to their dumb conventional equivalents. I’ll try and find it - it was a thesis by a US officer.
It had a look at the cost of countermeasures as well.
The cost doesn't matter to the end user though as the best weapon in any particular situation is the one you have. The RAF put 7 x Paveway IV on an ISIS 'lair' in Iraq last week. By the time you've added in the Typhoon and tanker hours you're probably looking at half a million quid. Absolutely nobody involved ever hesitated for one second to evaluate if this was the best possible use of £500,000 of tax payers' cash.
Cost matters for any conflict like Ukraine where sustainability of munition supply becomes a factor. And it hasn’t stopped us sending Storm Shadows at c.£1m a unit (the fact we’ve got so many sitting in the shelf, we don’t use them very often, and it costs to keep them there is also a factor.)
Cost matters even less in a conflict like the SMO as the constraint on both sides is manufacturing capacity not money. The US can print as many dollars as they want but they can only send as many 155mm rounds as they can make. Ditto RF with rubles/152mm.
Cost is a very large constraint in stocks prior to conflict - and while it’s not equivalent to manufacturing capacity correlates pretty well with the ability to increase it. Cheap drones started being used because there wasn’t anything else available in sufficient numbers. Despite being improvised lashups, they’ve proved surprisingly useful; and definitely the only cost effective way to take out Scooby vans,
Conventional artillery shells are usually a waste of time (and artillery tubes) for the particular task.
Cheaper drones will obviously be developed to be much more lethal, since the cost- effectiveness is already so high. The future for armour looks much more constrained than now.
That's total arse. How do they get from an FPV Drone's chance of destroying an armoured target of 5-50% (which is clearly just made up) to concluding that only ONE shot is required?
There was a really good study, a while back, on how cheap certain “smart” weapons were, compared to their dumb conventional equivalents. I’ll try and find it - it was a thesis by a US officer.
It had a look at the cost of countermeasures as well.
The cost doesn't matter to the end user though as the best weapon in any particular situation is the one you have. The RAF put 7 x Paveway IV on an ISIS 'lair' in Iraq last week. By the time you've added in the Typhoon and tanker hours you're probably looking at half a million quid. Absolutely nobody involved ever hesitated for one second to evaluate if this was the best possible use of £500,000 of tax payers' cash.
Cost matters for any conflict like Ukraine where sustainability of munition supply becomes a factor. And it hasn’t stopped us sending Storm Shadows at c.£1m a unit (the fact we’ve got so many sitting in the shelf, we don’t use them very often, and it costs to keep them there is also a factor.)
Cost does get factored in during procurement. Hence hi-lo mixes - NLAW and Javelin. The Charlie G* is making a comeback on the basis of ultra low cost per round.
*in the cadets, one lucky soul was allowed to fire a round. He was concussed for about a week.
I'll say it again, Brexiteer Tories are intent on delivering Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto pledges.
Brexit = Socialism.
This is what I said last night.
Sunak will end up paying private equity to subsidise food prices in supermarkets. I'm sure the likes of Clayton, Dubilier, & Rice, and the Issa Brothers will love it.
Edward Heath delivered price controls in 1972. Michael Heseltine, Macmillan, Baldwin, Chamberlain, Disraeli often supported government intervention.
As a laissez faire liberal you fail to understand Toryism is a middle way between socialism and laissez faire liberalism economically (something ex LD Truss failed to grasp too), sometimes Tory governments will intervene if needed, especially due to high levels of current food prices post Ukraine war. That doesn't mean nationalising most industry however as socialists would or putting up tax levels very high.
Indeed Thatcher was arguably more a laissez faire Gladstone Liberal herself than patrician Tory
But I'm a liberal who can't be described as laissez-faire, and you keep calling me a Marxist. So what the fuck do you know about anything?
You aren't a liberal, at most you might be a social democrat but on no definition are you a proper liberal in economic terms even if you might be in social terms
I think you are confusing neoliberal for liberal.
No, neoliberal is about spreading freedom and democracy abroad even by military means.
Liberals are economically and socially liberal, they can be neoliberals on foreign policy yes but then so can conservatives. Far too many people say they are 'liberals' on here when they aren't, they are actually social democrats.
Indeed the only proper liberal leaders of the Liberal Democrats this century have been Nick Clegg and just about now Sir Ed Davey. The rest, Kennedy, Campbell, Cable, Farron and Swinson were all social democrats. That is though understandable given the Liberal Democrats are themselves a coalition formed from social democrats from the old SDP who were mainly ex Labour and traditional Liberals from the old Liberal Party
I assume I fit into your liberal definition? We do get on with Social Democrats and lefty Tories however, we just find both of them not radical enough. As Douglas Adams would say 'Mostly Harmless'.
Yes, you are a genuine liberal KJH rather than a social democrat
Categories/Identities/Ideologies seem to be really important to you. You police them very strictly.
Why?
Do you feel there’s a political advantage? Strikes me that such an approach is likely to be counterproductive, in terms of exercising power and influence.
Does anyone in the universe hate Keir Starmer, really?
He's too boring to hate.
I'd say he's hated by some people from 2 specific groups. The Hard Corbynite Left and the Antiwokest Nationalistic Right.
I don’t understand this hate idea
I do not agree Starmer has the answers but I do not hate him or indeed any politician
Hate breads unexpected consequences and for me is to be avoided wherever possible
Do you honestly think Sunak has the answers though, really?
That is a different question
Sunak is the conservatives best hope of mitigating what looks increasingly likely a defeat in 2024 and at least Sunak and Hunt are dealing responsible with the present economic crisis
In truth I fear no single political party has the answers, and I would go further in that I am not sure there are answers to the deep seated problems the country faces
I think you said you have a 5 year fixed rate mortgage and are worried where interest rates will be at end of the term, and you raise the legitimate fear of mortgage holders but the only answer is to stop and reverse inflation which in turn may well cause a recession, as Hunt honestly said last week, and then interest rates will fall
Unfortunately there is simply too much politics and not enough common sense and if I could arrange it I would form a government of nation unity made up from all parties
There are always answers.
As for the question of interest rates, it absolutely sucks for people who bought based on prevailing low interest rates (for 1t years). But they were always going to return to historical levels - had to return otherwise we were screwed as an economy.
But during that period asset prices were too high. We are seeing it in water and private equity. We are seeing it in house prices. It’s a painful adjustment that has to happen. But it sucks on an individual level.
Conventional artillery shells are usually a waste of time (and artillery tubes) for the particular task.
Cheaper drones will obviously be developed to be much more lethal, since the cost- effectiveness is already so high. The future for armour looks much more constrained than now.
That's total arse. How do they get from an FPV Drone's chance of destroying an armoured target of 5-50% (which is clearly just made up) to concluding that only ONE shot is required?
There was a really good study, a while back, on how cheap certain “smart” weapons were, compared to their dumb conventional equivalents. I’ll try and find it - it was a thesis by a US officer.
It had a look at the cost of countermeasures as well.
The cost doesn't matter to the end user though as the best weapon in any particular situation is the one you have. The RAF put 7 x Paveway IV on an ISIS 'lair' in Iraq last week. By the time you've added in the Typhoon and tanker hours you're probably looking at half a million quid. Absolutely nobody involved ever hesitated for one second to evaluate if this was the best possible use of £500,000 of tax payers' cash.
Cost matters for any conflict like Ukraine where sustainability of munition supply becomes a factor. And it hasn’t stopped us sending Storm Shadows at c.£1m a unit (the fact we’ve got so many sitting in the shelf, we don’t use them very often, and it costs to keep them there is also a factor.)
Cost matters even less in a conflict like the SMO as the constraint on both sides is manufacturing capacity not money. The US can print as many dollars as they want but they can only send as many 155mm rounds as they can make. Ditto RF with rubles/152mm.
Cost is a very large constraint in stocks prior to conflict - and while it’s not equivalent to manufacturing capacity correlates pretty well with the ability to increase it. Cheap drones started being used because there wasn’t anything else available in sufficient numbers. Despite being improvised lashups, they’ve proved surprisingly useful; and definitely the only cost effective way to take out Scooby vans,
There are also significant bottlenecks in quite a lot of dumb weapons. Artillery shells need precision manufacturer and the barrels even more so. Both are consumed at vast rates in conventional barrage attacks.
Hence the numbers suggesting that smart shells are actually cheaper - a guided round could be $50k - but a conventional shell is already 1k or so. And you might end up firing a hundred to hit the target. Then you factor in barrel wear, wear on the rest of the gun, vulnerability window for firing 100 rounds….
Conventional artillery shells are usually a waste of time (and artillery tubes) for the particular task.
Cheaper drones will obviously be developed to be much more lethal, since the cost- effectiveness is already so high. The future for armour looks much more constrained than now.
That's total arse. How do they get from an FPV Drone's chance of destroying an armoured target of 5-50% (which is clearly just made up) to concluding that only ONE shot is required?
There was a really good study, a while back, on how cheap certain “smart” weapons were, compared to their dumb conventional equivalents. I’ll try and find it - it was a thesis by a US officer.
It had a look at the cost of countermeasures as well.
The cost doesn't matter to the end user though as the best weapon in any particular situation is the one you have. The RAF put 7 x Paveway IV on an ISIS 'lair' in Iraq last week. By the time you've added in the Typhoon and tanker hours you're probably looking at half a million quid. Absolutely nobody involved ever hesitated for one second to evaluate if this was the best possible use of £500,000 of tax payers' cash.
Cost matters for any conflict like Ukraine where sustainability of munition supply becomes a factor. And it hasn’t stopped us sending Storm Shadows at c.£1m a unit (the fact we’ve got so many sitting in the shelf, we don’t use them very often, and it costs to keep them there is also a factor.)
Cost does get factored in during procurement. Hence hi-lo mixes - NLAW and Javelin. The Charlie G* is making a comeback on the basis of ultra low cost per round.
*in the cadets, one lucky soul was allowed to fire a round. He was concussed for about a week.
For all those of you who don't speak @Dura_Ace , the "Charlie G" is the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle (a tube with a complex bit at one end. Fires small shells, not big bullets. Don't stand behind one)
Conventional artillery shells are usually a waste of time (and artillery tubes) for the particular task.
Cheaper drones will obviously be developed to be much more lethal, since the cost- effectiveness is already so high. The future for armour looks much more constrained than now.
That's total arse. How do they get from an FPV Drone's chance of destroying an armoured target of 5-50% (which is clearly just made up) to concluding that only ONE shot is required?
There was a really good study, a while back, on how cheap certain “smart” weapons were, compared to their dumb conventional equivalents. I’ll try and find it - it was a thesis by a US officer.
It had a look at the cost of countermeasures as well.
The cost doesn't matter to the end user though as the best weapon in any particular situation is the one you have. The RAF put 7 x Paveway IV on an ISIS 'lair' in Iraq last week. By the time you've added in the Typhoon and tanker hours you're probably looking at half a million quid. Absolutely nobody involved ever hesitated for one second to evaluate if this was the best possible use of £500,000 of tax payers' cash.
Cost matters for any conflict like Ukraine where sustainability of munition supply becomes a factor. And it hasn’t stopped us sending Storm Shadows at c.£1m a unit (the fact we’ve got so many sitting in the shelf, we don’t use them very often, and it costs to keep them there is also a factor.)
Cost matters even less in a conflict like the SMO as the constraint on both sides is manufacturing capacity not money. The US can print as many dollars as they want but they can only send as many 155mm rounds as they can make. Ditto RF with rubles/152mm.
Cost is a very large constraint in stocks prior to conflict - and while it’s not equivalent to manufacturing capacity correlates pretty well with the ability to increase it. Cheap drones started being used because there wasn’t anything else available in sufficient numbers. Despite being improvised lashups, they’ve proved surprisingly useful; and definitely the only cost effective way to take out Scooby vans,
There are also significant bottlenecks in quite a lot of dumb weapons. Artillery shells need precision manufacturer and the barrels even more so. Both are consumed at vast rates in conventional barrage attacks.
Conventional artillery shells are usually a waste of time (and artillery tubes) for the particular task.
Cheaper drones will obviously be developed to be much more lethal, since the cost- effectiveness is already so high. The future for armour looks much more constrained than now.
That's total arse. How do they get from an FPV Drone's chance of destroying an armoured target of 5-50% (which is clearly just made up) to concluding that only ONE shot is required?
There was a really good study, a while back, on how cheap certain “smart” weapons were, compared to their dumb conventional equivalents. I’ll try and find it - it was a thesis by a US officer.
It had a look at the cost of countermeasures as well.
The cost doesn't matter to the end user though as the best weapon in any particular situation is the one you have. The RAF put 7 x Paveway IV on an ISIS 'lair' in Iraq last week. By the time you've added in the Typhoon and tanker hours you're probably looking at half a million quid. Absolutely nobody involved ever hesitated for one second to evaluate if this was the best possible use of £500,000 of tax payers' cash.
Cost matters for any conflict like Ukraine where sustainability of munition supply becomes a factor. And it hasn’t stopped us sending Storm Shadows at c.£1m a unit (the fact we’ve got so many sitting in the shelf, we don’t use them very often, and it costs to keep them there is also a factor.)
Cost does get factored in during procurement. Hence hi-lo mixes - NLAW and Javelin. The Charlie G* is making a comeback on the basis of ultra low cost per round.
*in the cadets, one lucky soul was allowed to fire a round. He was concussed for about a week.
For all those of you who don't speak @Dura_Ace , the "Charlie G" is the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle (a tube with a complex bit at one end. Fires small shells, not big bullets. Don't stand behind one)
I'll say it again, Brexiteer Tories are intent on delivering Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto pledges.
Brexit = Socialism.
This is what I said last night.
Sunak will end up paying private equity to subsidise food prices in supermarkets. I'm sure the likes of Clayton, Dubilier, & Rice, and the Issa Brothers will love it.
Edward Heath delivered price controls in 1972. Michael Heseltine, Macmillan, Baldwin, Chamberlain, Disraeli often supported government intervention.
As a laissez faire liberal you fail to understand Toryism is a middle way between socialism and laissez faire liberalism economically (something ex LD Truss failed to grasp too), sometimes Tory governments will intervene if needed, especially due to high levels of current food prices post Ukraine war. That doesn't mean nationalising most industry however as socialists would or putting up tax levels very high.
Indeed Thatcher was arguably more a laissez faire Gladstone Liberal herself than patrician Tory
But I'm a liberal who can't be described as laissez-faire, and you keep calling me a Marxist. So what the fuck do you know about anything?
You aren't a liberal, at most you might be a social democrat but on no definition are you a proper liberal in economic terms even if you might be in social terms
I think you are confusing neoliberal for liberal.
No, neoliberal is about spreading freedom and democracy abroad even by military means.
Liberals are economically and socially liberal, they can be neoliberals on foreign policy yes but then so can conservatives. Far too many people say they are 'liberals' on here when they aren't, they are actually social democrats.
Indeed the only proper liberal leaders of the Liberal Democrats this century have been Nick Clegg and just about now Sir Ed Davey. The rest, Kennedy, Campbell, Cable, Farron and Swinson were all social democrats. That is though understandable given the Liberal Democrats are themselves a coalition formed from social democrats from the old SDP who were mainly ex Labour and traditional Liberals from the old Liberal Party
I assume I fit into your liberal definition? We do get on with Social Democrats and lefty Tories however, we just find both of them not radical enough. As Douglas Adams would say 'Mostly Harmless'.
Yes, you are a genuine liberal KJH rather than a social democrat
Categories/Identities/Ideologies seem to be really important to you. You police them very strictly.
Why?
Do you feel there’s a political advantage? Strikes me that such an approach is likely to be counterproductive, in terms of exercising power and influence.
No, just I don't like people claiming to be something when they are clearly ideologically something else.
I'll say it again, Brexiteer Tories are intent on delivering Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto pledges.
Brexit = Socialism.
This is what I said last night.
Sunak will end up paying private equity to subsidise food prices in supermarkets. I'm sure the likes of Clayton, Dubilier, & Rice, and the Issa Brothers will love it.
Edward Heath delivered price controls in 1972. Michael Heseltine, Macmillan, Baldwin, Chamberlain, Disraeli often supported government intervention.
As a laissez faire liberal you fail to understand Toryism is a middle way between socialism and laissez faire liberalism economically (something ex LD Truss failed to grasp too), sometimes Tory governments will intervene if needed, especially due to high levels of current food prices post Ukraine war. That doesn't mean nationalising most industry however as socialists would or putting up tax levels very high.
Indeed Thatcher was arguably more a laissez faire Gladstone Liberal herself than patrician Tory
But I'm a liberal who can't be described as laissez-faire, and you keep calling me a Marxist. So what the fuck do you know about anything?
You aren't a liberal, at most you might be a social democrat but on no definition are you a proper liberal in economic terms even if you might be in social terms
I think you are confusing neoliberal for liberal.
No, neoliberal is about spreading freedom and democracy abroad even by military means.
Liberals are economically and socially liberal, they can be neoliberals on foreign policy yes but then so can conservatives. Far too many people say they are 'liberals' on here when they aren't, they are actually social democrats.
Indeed the only proper liberal leaders of the Liberal Democrats this century have been Nick Clegg and just about now Sir Ed Davey. The rest, Kennedy, Campbell, Cable, Farron and Swinson were all social democrats. That is though understandable given the Liberal Democrats are themselves a coalition formed from social democrats from the old SDP who were mainly ex Labour and traditional Liberals from the old Liberal Party
I assume I fit into your liberal definition? We do get on with Social Democrats and lefty Tories however, we just find both of them not radical enough. As Douglas Adams would say 'Mostly Harmless'.
Yes, you are a genuine liberal KJH rather than a social democrat
Categories/Identities/Ideologies seem to be really important to you. You police them very strictly.
Why?
Do you feel there’s a political advantage? Strikes me that such an approach is likely to be counterproductive, in terms of exercising power and influence.
He has a tidy mind. It's his most useful feature. Unfortunately he can also fixate on things that are untrue and is obdurate to correction, but mostly he is either bang on or close enough.
Back from a week's holiday to find myself at the eye of a political tornado. Yes, there's a local council by-election in my Ward in Newham - one of two in the Borough as a councillor in Boleyn has also resigned.
The resignation of Luke Charters in Wall End isn't a huge surprise - he fought York Outer in 2017 and has been re-selected and would fancy his chances of getting the 9.1% swing he needs to take the seat on current polling.
Labour have been out this morning with flyers for the new candidate who works for the NHS.
She'll probably walk it but three outlying thoughts - the Conservatives got 30% in a by-election in May 2021 but they usually pick a young respectable Hindu business man who has all the political skills of a gnat and duly gets thrashed. Last time an Independent called Swarup Choudhury finished behind the three victorious Labour candidates. He was 925 votes behind the last of the Labour candidates but 300 votes ahead of the top Conservative. Choudhury wasn't really an Independent but part of a small slate of left-leaning anti-Labour candidates who backed the Mayoral candidacy of Mehmood Mirza (who ended up fourth).
The third possibility is or are the Greens who are in terms of votes and seats the official opposition in Newham. The Greens broke the Labour monopoly last time by winning two of the new seats at Stratford but they improved their vote across the Borough. In Wall End, there was only 20 votes between the bottom placed Conservative and the leading Green.
The Greens are going to be fighting both Wall End and Boleyn hard I suspect. They are about in Wall End today as well. The Conservatives were out and about yesterday so plenty of politics ahead until we get the by-election dates announced.
I'll say it again, Brexiteer Tories are intent on delivering Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto pledges.
Brexit = Socialism.
This is what I said last night.
Sunak will end up paying private equity to subsidise food prices in supermarkets. I'm sure the likes of Clayton, Dubilier, & Rice, and the Issa Brothers will love it.
Edward Heath delivered price controls in 1972. Michael Heseltine, Macmillan, Baldwin, Chamberlain, Disraeli often supported government intervention.
As a laissez faire liberal you fail to understand Toryism is a middle way between socialism and laissez faire liberalism economically (something ex LD Truss failed to grasp too), sometimes Tory governments will intervene if needed, especially due to high levels of current food prices post Ukraine war. That doesn't mean nationalising most industry however as socialists would or putting up tax levels very high.
Indeed Thatcher was arguably more a laissez faire Gladstone Liberal herself than patrician Tory
But I'm a liberal who can't be described as laissez-faire, and you keep calling me a Marxist. So what the fuck do you know about anything?
You aren't a liberal, at most you might be a social democrat but on no definition are you a proper liberal in economic terms even if you might be in social terms
I think you are confusing neoliberal for liberal.
No, neoliberal is about spreading freedom and democracy abroad even by military means.
Liberals are economically and socially liberal, they can be neoliberals on foreign policy yes but then so can conservatives. Far too many people say they are 'liberals' on here when they aren't, they are actually social democrats.
Indeed the only proper liberal leaders of the Liberal Democrats this century have been Nick Clegg and just about now Sir Ed Davey. The rest, Kennedy, Campbell, Cable, Farron and Swinson were all social democrats. That is though understandable given the Liberal Democrats are themselves a coalition formed from social democrats from the old SDP who were mainly ex Labour and traditional Liberals from the old Liberal Party
I assume I fit into your liberal definition? We do get on with Social Democrats and lefty Tories however, we just find both of them not radical enough. As Douglas Adams would say 'Mostly Harmless'.
Yes, you are a genuine liberal KJH rather than a social democrat
Categories/Identities/Ideologies seem to be really important to you. You police them very strictly.
Why?
Do you feel there’s a political advantage? Strikes me that such an approach is likely to be counterproductive, in terms of exercising power and influence.
No, just I don't like people claiming to be something when they are clearly ideologically something else.
Many years back, libertarianism had a brief moment of popularity in the U.K.
Poly Toynbee wrote a column for the Guardian. In which she decried actual libertarians as “negative”. And wanted to appropriate the word libertarian for people like her - big state types, who were in favour of state regulation of everything and sensible ideas like the Labour plan for a unified database for all personal data to be accessible by anyone in government.
Gerry Hassan is one of those columnists that can write a 20,000 word article, which after you have ploughed through it, you realise he has actually said nothing!
Does anyone in the universe hate Keir Starmer, really?
He's too boring to hate.
I'd say he's hated by some people from 2 specific groups. The Hard Corbynite Left and the Antiwokest Nationalistic Right.
The same groups are also not very keen on Sunak either, hence it is likely both the Green and RefUK voteshares will be up at the next general election
Perhaps so. It's an odd one really. The left are more anti-Starmer than anti-Sunak and vice versa with the right. The first I at least understand a little bit. Starmer did con the left to get the leadership and now he's scrubbing them like they're a rash. The other I find harder to comprehend. Sunak is a right wing tory and a Brexit true believer. So why the hatred of him from the right? Is it because they think he brought down the beloved Boris in some sort of devious 'unBritish' way? And/or something to do with being a spoilsport instead of backing Liz? Answers on a postcard.
Sunak is too pro high tax and spend, not hard Brexit enough (see his NI deal), not tough on immigration enough, was too pro lockdown and vaccine during Covid and not anti Woke enough for the hard Right
Well it oughtn't be for me to bat for him but - He isn't pro tax & spend. He was just CoE during the costly pandemic. The NI deal was merely to clear up some Johnson mess. He leaned to the anti-lockdown side. Argued that against the beloved. Pro vaccine just means not a fruitcake. He is as anti-Woke as you can get with out going all Littlejohn. Immigration? Yes, ok, I can see that one with the big numbers released the other day. He's 'sound' on the rhetoric though. I mean, he keeps threatening to deport migrants to Rwanda, would you believe.
Sunak is Norman Tebbit reincarnated as an Asian citizen-of-nowhere billionaire hedge fund manager.
@TheScreamingEagles I presume that's for the same reason as me: her ducking out of KCIII coronation concert because she didn't want to upset republicans.
I'll say it again, Brexiteer Tories are intent on delivering Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto pledges.
Brexit = Socialism.
This is what I said last night.
Sunak will end up paying private equity to subsidise food prices in supermarkets. I'm sure the likes of Clayton, Dubilier, & Rice, and the Issa Brothers will love it.
Edward Heath delivered price controls in 1972. Michael Heseltine, Macmillan, Baldwin, Chamberlain, Disraeli often supported government intervention.
As a laissez faire liberal you fail to understand Toryism is a middle way between socialism and laissez faire liberalism economically (something ex LD Truss failed to grasp too), sometimes Tory governments will intervene if needed, especially due to high levels of current food prices post Ukraine war. That doesn't mean nationalising most industry however as socialists would or putting up tax levels very high.
Indeed Thatcher was arguably more a laissez faire Gladstone Liberal herself than patrician Tory
But I'm a liberal who can't be described as laissez-faire, and you keep calling me a Marxist. So what the fuck do you know about anything?
You aren't a liberal, at most you might be a social democrat but on no definition are you a proper liberal in economic terms even if you might be in social terms
I think you are confusing neoliberal for liberal.
No, neoliberal is about spreading freedom and democracy abroad even by military means.
Liberals are economically and socially liberal, they can be neoliberals on foreign policy yes but then so can conservatives. Far too many people say they are 'liberals' on here when they aren't, they are actually social democrats.
Indeed the only proper liberal leaders of the Liberal Democrats this century have been Nick Clegg and just about now Sir Ed Davey. The rest, Kennedy, Campbell, Cable, Farron and Swinson were all social democrats. That is though understandable given the Liberal Democrats are themselves a coalition formed from social democrats from the old SDP who were mainly ex Labour and traditional Liberals from the old Liberal Party
I assume I fit into your liberal definition? We do get on with Social Democrats and lefty Tories however, we just find both of them not radical enough. As Douglas Adams would say 'Mostly Harmless'.
Yes, you are a genuine liberal KJH rather than a social democrat
Categories/Identities/Ideologies seem to be really important to you. You police them very strictly.
Why?
Do you feel there’s a political advantage? Strikes me that such an approach is likely to be counterproductive, in terms of exercising power and influence.
No, just I don't like people claiming to be something when they are clearly ideologically something else.
Many years back, libertarianism had a brief moment of popularity in the U.K.
Poly Toynbee wrote a column for the Guardian. In which she decried actual libertarians as “negative”. And wanted to appropriate the word libertarian for people like her - big state types, who were in favour of state regulation of everything and sensible ideas like the Labour plan for a unified database for all personal data to be accessible by anyone in government.
Yes, Sarah Vine did something similar. The chattering classes can be epically dim.
@TheScreamingEagles I presume that's for the same reason as me: her ducking out of KCIII coronation concert because she didn't want to upset republicans.
To be fair to her, that’s a little more of a controversial political issue in Australia.
That doesn’t look like the queue for the automated gates the Brits use. It’s in front of the passport desk. I wonder if it is an American flight?
There was an IT problem yesterday and the gates went down briefly. If you have an automated system it is always going to cause chaos when that automated system fails briefly, for whatever reason. In fact, whatever system you have is going to cause chaos if, for any reason that system fails, or has to deal with something it wasn't designed for.
Needless to say, it has nothing to do with Brexit.
I spent decades frustrated with the way in which right-wing journalists - like Boris Johnson - would blame anything and everything on eurocrats, and invent new ills that they were plotting to inflict on the British public. Perhaps, rather naively, I thought that my side of the debate had higher standards of fact and truth, but it seems like there are plenty people determined to express their inchoate rage at Brexit by abandoning any objectivity.
Kinda depressing, but Brexit supporters better get used to it. There will be people who will blame everything on Brexit, and a lot of people who will listen to them.
It would be interesting to see how the Conservative message on immigration (whatever it is) would play on the streets of Wall End and Boleyn but that's for the Conservatives.
However, what now seems clear is, having sorted out "Europe" after 35 years of division, the Conservatives have quickly found a new internal fault line in immigration. What for instance is the next Conservative Manifesto going to say and how will it be nuanced?
To be fair, allowing the Conservatives to "bang on" about immigration is probably the best way to ensure a decade or more of non-Conservative Government. OTOH, the issue clearly has more salience than EU membership had for many years - the problem for this observer is reconciling economic growth without cheap labour unless you are going to invest big in automation of business processes whether through AI, Bots or whatever. That will get you so far and may be as profound economically and socially as the reduction of "heavy" industry in the early 80s.
That doesn’t look like the queue for the automated gates the Brits use. It’s in front of the passport desk. I wonder if it is an American flight?
There was an IT problem yesterday and the gates went down briefly. If you have an automated system it is always going to cause chaos when that automated system fails briefly, for whatever reason. In fact, whatever system you have is going to cause chaos if, for any reason that system fails, or has to deal with something it wasn't designed for.
Needless to say, it has nothing to do with Brexit.
I spent decades frustrated with the way in which right-wing journalists - like Boris Johnson - would blame anything and everything on eurocrats, and invent new ills that they were plotting to inflict on the British public. Perhaps, rather naively, I thought that my side of the debate had higher standards of fact and truth, but it seems like there are plenty people determined to express their inchoate rage at Brexit by abandoning any objectivity.
Kinda depressing, but Brexit supporters better get used to it. There will be people who will blame everything on Brexit, and a lot of people who will listen to them.
Does anyone in the universe hate Keir Starmer, really?
He's too boring to hate.
I'd say he's hated by some people from 2 specific groups. The Hard Corbynite Left and the Antiwokest Nationalistic Right.
The same groups are also not very keen on Sunak either, hence it is likely both the Green and RefUK voteshares will be up at the next general election
Perhaps so. It's an odd one really. The left are more anti-Starmer than anti-Sunak and vice versa with the right. The first I at least understand a little bit. Starmer did con the left to get the leadership and now he's scrubbing them like they're a rash. The other I find harder to comprehend. Sunak is a right wing tory and a Brexit true believer. So why the hatred of him from the right? Is it because they think he brought down the beloved Boris in some sort of devious 'unBritish' way? And/or something to do with being a spoilsport instead of backing Liz? Answers on a postcard.
Sunak is too pro high tax and spend, not hard Brexit enough (see his NI deal), not tough on immigration enough, was too pro lockdown and vaccine during Covid and not anti Woke enough for the hard Right
Well it oughtn't be for me to bat for him but - He isn't pro tax & spend. He was just CoE during the costly pandemic. The NI deal was merely to clear up some Johnson mess. He leaned to the anti-lockdown side. Argued that against the beloved. Pro vaccine just means not a fruitcake. He is as anti-Woke as you can get with out going all Littlejohn. Immigration? Yes, ok, I can see that one with the big numbers released the other day. He's 'sound' on the rhetoric though. I mean, he keeps threatening to deport migrants to Rwanda, would you believe.
Sunak is Norman Tebbit reincarnated as an Asian citizen-of-nowhere billionaire hedge fund manager.
Hard to get our head around that.
Let's not overegg the pudding. 'Billionaire hedge fund manager' makes it sound as if he made his billions rather than married them.
Comments
*in the cadets, one lucky soul was allowed to fire a round. He was concussed for about a week.
Cheap drones started being used because there wasn’t anything else available in sufficient numbers. Despite being improvised lashups, they’ve proved surprisingly useful; and definitely the only cost effective way to take out Scooby vans,
And this is all about both cost and availability:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Precision_Kill_Weapon_System
Categories/Identities/Ideologies seem to be really important to you. You police them very strictly.
Why?
Do you feel there’s a political advantage? Strikes me that such an approach is likely to be counterproductive, in terms of exercising power and influence.
As for the question of interest rates, it absolutely sucks for people who bought based on prevailing low interest rates (for 1t years). But they were always going to return to historical levels - had to return otherwise we were screwed as an economy.
But during that period asset prices were too high. We are seeing it in water and private equity. We are seeing it in house prices. It’s a painful adjustment that has to happen. But it sucks on an individual level.
Queen Elizabeth to Prince Harry—what a falling-off was there!
Theodore Dalrymple"
https://www.city-journal.org/article/from-duty-to-decadence
Hence the numbers suggesting that smart shells are actually cheaper - a guided round could be $50k - but a conventional shell is already 1k or so. And you might end up firing a hundred to hit the target. Then you factor in barrel wear, wear on the rest of the gun, vulnerability window for firing 100 rounds….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97H7jkLm7rE
Hence the numbers suggesting that p Or in front. Or to the side.
The original produced a fierce back last that made it quite unpopular to fire.
https://i.insider.com/5ab4284ba042513d008b49d8?width=1300&format=jpeg&auto=webp
Gives a bit of the flavour of the thing - the blast to the right is the back blast…
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/drugs-kingpin-who-planned-flood-26999629
I can’t help but feel somewhat responsible. I voted for his mum’s boss (the tory PCC candidate), back in 2012.
I should have voted for the hopeless labour candidate, who was fixated on using her position to crush the far right instead.
Now you're on my enemies list.
Back from a week's holiday to find myself at the eye of a political tornado. Yes, there's a local council by-election in my Ward in Newham - one of two in the Borough as a councillor in Boleyn has also resigned.
The resignation of Luke Charters in Wall End isn't a huge surprise - he fought York Outer in 2017 and has been re-selected and would fancy his chances of getting the 9.1% swing he needs to take the seat on current polling.
Labour have been out this morning with flyers for the new candidate who works for the NHS.
She'll probably walk it but three outlying thoughts - the Conservatives got 30% in a by-election in May 2021 but they usually pick a young respectable Hindu business man who has all the political skills of a gnat and duly gets thrashed. Last time an Independent called Swarup Choudhury finished behind the three victorious Labour candidates. He was 925 votes behind the last of the Labour candidates but 300 votes ahead of the top Conservative. Choudhury wasn't really an Independent but part of a small slate of left-leaning anti-Labour candidates who backed the Mayoral candidacy of Mehmood Mirza (who ended up fourth).
The third possibility is or are the Greens who are in terms of votes and seats the official opposition in Newham. The Greens broke the Labour monopoly last time by winning two of the new seats at Stratford but they improved their vote across the Borough. In Wall End, there was only 20 votes between the bottom placed Conservative and the leading Green.
The Greens are going to be fighting both Wall End and Boleyn hard I suspect. They are about in Wall End today as well. The Conservatives were out and about yesterday so plenty of politics ahead until we get the by-election dates announced.
Poly Toynbee wrote a column for the Guardian. In which she decried actual libertarians as “negative”. And wanted to appropriate the word libertarian for people like her - big state types, who were in favour of state regulation of everything and sensible ideas like the Labour plan for a unified database for all personal data to be accessible by anyone in government.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/11/25/why-the-scottish-independence-debate-is-not-over/
[sucks teeth]
OK, I'll let you off this time, but listen to "Confide in Me" as penance.
Hard to get our head around that.
If Max is going to have a singer dressed in white draped over his car, I’m sure he’d take Kylie over Geri any day.
I swanned through there, very few masks
But yesterday there was chaos coz the e-gates broke down around the UK, apparently
NEW THREAD
Needless to say, it has nothing to do with Brexit.
I spent decades frustrated with the way in which right-wing journalists - like Boris Johnson - would blame anything and everything on eurocrats, and invent new ills that they were plotting to inflict on the British public. Perhaps, rather naively, I thought that my side of the debate had higher standards of fact and truth, but it seems like there are plenty people determined to express their inchoate rage at Brexit by abandoning any objectivity.
Kinda depressing, but Brexit supporters better get used to it. There will be people who will blame everything on Brexit, and a lot of people who will listen to them.
I've done a dozen flights around the world in the last few months, not even in Asia did I see that many masks in airports. Peculiar
However, what now seems clear is, having sorted out "Europe" after 35 years of division, the Conservatives have quickly found a new internal fault line in immigration. What for instance is the next Conservative Manifesto going to say and how will it be nuanced?
To be fair, allowing the Conservatives to "bang on" about immigration is probably the best way to ensure a decade or more of non-Conservative Government. OTOH, the issue clearly has more salience than EU membership had for many years - the problem for this observer is reconciling economic growth without cheap labour unless you are going to invest big in automation of business processes whether through AI, Bots or whatever. That will get you so far and may be as profound economically and socially as the reduction of "heavy" industry in the early 80s.
https://twitter.com/carriewarrie1/status/1662717118196994049?t=BtMi_2M1Fs8omYxa1hMPLQ&s=19