The secret service has notified him about how Putin is going to escalate the war in July/August and Sunak doesn't want to deal with it.
I think it is quite plausible that Sunak has taken heed of the warnings about the risk of a UK general election being adjacent to the US Presidential election. It would be all too easy for the UK campaign to get caught up in the drama and outside interference that seems almost guaranteed for the election in November. It wouldn't necessarily be Putin's war in Ukraine, there are lots of other possible provocations.
Good morning everyone. That’s a greeting, not a wish that Conservative supporters have to stop feeling pessimistic.
Mrs Cole has just asked me a question to which I don’t know the answer…… one of many over the years, of course, but this time people here may be able to help. Does this National Service thing apply to both sexes, or just males. If so, do girls get the military option? (We know there are women in the Armed Services.)
It really can't be boys only
There was a stunning interview on r4 pick of the week last night. Female us f16 fighter pilot, just qualified on 9/11 but still in training squadron so no live weapons, sent up with instructions to collide with flight 93 to prevent it reaching Washington [spoiler: it had actually crashed by the time she took off,,but she didn't know that].
F-16 always flies with at least 100 rounds in the gun to maintain CoG limits so "Lucky" Penney wasn't totally unarmed as the legend now has it. However, that might not have been enough to bring down UA93 (M61 will do 100 rounds in one second) so a Sonderkommando Elbe style ramming attack was always a possibility. Aim for the cockpit and bang out at the last second. Home for tea and medals.
It says here you can limit bursts to 2 rounds. So with an unarmed opponent you can go round 50 times trying to shoot him through the windscreen. Unnerving even if you miss.
It would hardly unnerve someone about to enter paradise as a martyr by flying into a big building.
Can anyone beat that? Has anyone else had an unusual skin condition with a strange name that formed a simulacrum of the face of a barely remembered political figure on a particularly intimate part of their anatomy?
Just a reminder, Leon.
Your photo quota today is zero
A cousin of mine who worked at Halford’s suffered a sporadic but sharp case of vitiligo where the unmistakeable image of Donald Dewer making a speech would appear on his buttocks, but only during the winter
Halfords have a zero enforcement (or even) care policy on shoplifting. I don't think I have paid for a 10mm socket for about five years.
Incredibly I'm off to Halfords (new wipers) right now. Apparently they will fit them for a nominal extra £5. Bet they won't. Too good to be true.
£1 a second , easy money if you get a mug who will pay it.
In other F-16 news, Ukrainian Crew Training Plan C looks like it's finally coming together. Plan A was a multi-national centre in Romania. Nobody would pay for it. Plan B was Denmark which has gone very murky and produced no crew. Plan C is apparently Arizona ANG.
Presumably a training capability more independent of the US will develop over time. Part and parcel of the increase in European defence spending.
Don't expect @Dura_Ace to have accurate intel on these matters. I'm also surprised that someone who claims to have been involved in the military is surprised that the number of combatants produced for an active conflict is 'murky'..
The F-16 training has taken longer than initially estimated. Help for Ukraine is still slow, late and insufficient.
There was a report the other day that Russia was producing 3x as many 152mm shells as the US and Europe was producing 155mm shells.
The West was supposed to be able to use its economic strength to easily produce more military equipment and ammunition than Russia. This has ended up being an embarrassing failure.
Yes and no. Yes, we are not going as fast as we should, or promised.
On the other hand, Russia is turning increasingly large and significant parts of its economy to produce what will soon be hunks of scrap metal in Ukraine, and begging and borrowing from those titans of military production, Iran and North Korea, whilst the 'west' have not even finished buffing their nails.
When the war ends - even with a Russian 'victory' - their economy will be utterly in the shitter (and it's already bad); especially if the sanctions remain.
We're 27 months in. When is the West going to decide to do what is necessary to equip Ukraine for victory?
Seeing as @Casino_Royale has openly admitted that he will be campaigning for the Conservative Party his posts are effectively @HYUFD style party political broadcasts
I know it's unwelcome to you to have another point of view intrude into your happy echo chamber but you're going to have to put up with it for the next 6 weeks, I'm afraid.
It's called democracy.
Is it actually your point of view though or is it actually the point of view of the party which seems to change at the drop of a hat
I always share on here my point of view.
I look forward to you criticising aspects of the Tory manifesto that you disagree with
Labour is now where our focus should be - look at the polls.
How about you look forward to me pointing out that SKS is far from the best thing since sliced bread and many of the policies he is proposing will exacerbate the problems in this country, not solve them?
I actually agree with you there, from a political strategy perspective. That's why, even if a net neutral or slight positive, the National Service thing was silly.
The Ming vase strategy requires Labour to get through 6 weeks of as little media coverage as possible. That will be easy if we get more National Service type policies from Sunak.
It's about denying any oxygen to Reform and rallying the base; it also shifts the debate to defence and security - and away from cost of living where Labour would like it.
SKS has responded by basically taking yesterday off to decide how to respond, so it has disrupted their grid, and he's trying to make a speech about security atm, but it hasn't got much beyond his first job "clearing stones for farmers" so far, which did make me chuckle.
Very sensible of him.
I hope he takes a similar approach to being PM. Working 20 hour days, and trying to respond immediately to every shift in the political wind, exhausts PMs, and is probably part of the reason they make such poor decisions from time to time.
I don't hold out any great hopes for his administration, but basic competence would be an improvement on what we've had for most of the last decade.
Exactly, your projections are based entirely on the frustrations of the existing administration.
Which is why absolutely no-one wants to hear any criticism whatever of SKS or his prospective new Labour administration.
It would destroy that.
The rather breathless praise of SKS from some quarters is an interesting one. From a purely political game, he has played a very good one (though has undeniably benefitted from the Tories imploding). I do think he gets a bit more praise than is perhaps merited: but I do think some of this comes from the fact that to many of us he is the alternative to what we see as a very bad, clapped out, tired and desperate government - so of course he comes out well in that comparison.
It will be very interesting to see how quickly that perception shifts after the GE.
Who praises Starmer breathlessly? I am not picking up on this. Even positive comments about Starmer tend to heavy qualification: "doesn't offer any hope", "underestimated", "better than Sunak" etc
'Sexy' Sir Keir has appeared from nowhere this morning and has a rather breathless quality.
De gustibus, etc.
I can't honestly think of any politician I'd ever describe as sexy.
I'm sure there are a few guilty fancies out there. For example I think Gillian Keegan has a glint in her eye, and if I were inclined that way, young Joseph Vissarionovich a total hunk.
Yikes at GK (no ta), but The Young Man Of Steel (Abs) is worth using my daily pic quota for.
Can anyone beat that? Has anyone else had an unusual skin condition with a strange name that formed a simulacrum of the face of a barely remembered political figure on a particularly intimate part of their anatomy?
Just a reminder, Leon.
Your photo quota today is zero
A cousin of mine who worked at Halford’s suffered a sporadic but sharp case of vitiligo where the unmistakeable image of Donald Dewer making a speech would appear on his buttocks, but only during the winter
Halfords have a zero enforcement (or even) care policy on shoplifting. I don't think I have paid for a 10mm socket for about five years.
Incredibly I'm off to Halfords (new wipers) right now. Apparently they will fit them for a nominal extra £5. Bet they won't. Too good to be true.
A friend of mine bought a bike from Halfords. I spent a day taking it apart and putting everything back in the right place.
Front fork wrong way photos of Halfords and Walmart bikes crop up weekly on Reddit
Seeing as @Casino_Royale has openly admitted that he will be campaigning for the Conservative Party his posts are effectively @HYUFD style party political broadcasts
I know it's unwelcome to you to have another point of view intrude into your happy echo chamber but you're going to have to put up with it for the next 6 weeks, I'm afraid.
It's called democracy.
Is it actually your point of view though or is it actually the point of view of the party which seems to change at the drop of a hat
I always share on here my point of view.
I look forward to you criticising aspects of the Tory manifesto that you disagree with
Labour is now where our focus should be - look at the polls.
How about you look forward to me pointing out that SKS is far from the best thing since sliced bread and many of the policies he is proposing will exacerbate the problems in this country, not solve them?
I actually agree with you there, from a political strategy perspective. That's why, even if a net neutral or slight positive, the National Service thing was silly.
The Ming vase strategy requires Labour to get through 6 weeks of as little media coverage as possible. That will be easy if we get more National Service type policies from Sunak.
It's about denying any oxygen to Reform and rallying the base; it also shifts the debate to defence and security - and away from cost of living where Labour would like it.
SKS has responded by basically taking yesterday off to decide how to respond, so it has disrupted their grid, and he's trying to make a speech about security atm, but it hasn't got much beyond his first job "clearing stones for farmers" so far, which did make me chuckle.
Very sensible of him.
I hope he takes a similar approach to being PM. Working 20 hour days, and trying to respond immediately to every shift in the political wind, exhausts PMs, and is probably part of the reason they make such poor decisions from time to time.
I don't hold out any great hopes for his administration, but basic competence would be an improvement on what we've had for most of the last decade.
Exactly, your projections are based entirely on the frustrations of the existing administration.
Which is why absolutely no-one wants to hear any criticism whatever of SKS or his prospective new Labour administration.
It would destroy that.
The rather breathless praise of SKS from some quarters is an interesting one. From a purely political game, he has played a very good one (though has undeniably benefitted from the Tories imploding). I do think he gets a bit more praise than is perhaps merited: but I do think some of this comes from the fact that to many of us he is the alternative to what we see as a very bad, clapped out, tired and desperate government - so of course he comes out well in that comparison.
It will be very interesting to see how quickly that perception shifts after the GE.
Who praises Starmer breathlessly? I am not picking up on this. Even positive comments about Starmer tend to heavy qualification: "doesn't offer any hope", "underestimated", "better than Sunak" etc
'Sexy' Sir Keir has appeared from nowhere this morning and has a rather breathless quality.
De gustibus, etc.
I can't honestly think of any politician I'd ever describe as sexy.
Thatcher famously made many Tory males hot under the collar in the 80s.
In other F-16 news, Ukrainian Crew Training Plan C looks like it's finally coming together. Plan A was a multi-national centre in Romania. Nobody would pay for it. Plan B was Denmark which has gone very murky and produced no crew. Plan C is apparently Arizona ANG.
Presumably a training capability more independent of the US will develop over time. Part and parcel of the increase in European defence spending.
Don't expect @Dura_Ace to have accurate intel on these matters. I'm also surprised that someone who claims to have been involved in the military is surprised that the number of combatants produced for an active conflict is 'murky'..
The F-16 training has taken longer than initially estimated. Help for Ukraine is still slow, late and insufficient.
There was a report the other day that Russia was producing 3x as many 152mm shells as the US and Europe was producing 155mm shells.
The West was supposed to be able to use its economic strength to easily produce more military equipment and ammunition than Russia. This has ended up being an embarrassing failure.
Yes and no. Yes, we are not going as fast as we should, or promised.
On the other hand, Russia is turning increasingly large and significant parts of its economy to produce what will soon be hunks of scrap metal in Ukraine, and begging and borrowing from those titans of military production, Iran and North Korea, whilst the 'west' have not even finished buffing their nails.
When the war ends - even with a Russian 'victory' - their economy will be utterly in the shitter (and it's already bad); especially if the sanctions remain.
We're 27 months in. When is the West going to decide to do what is necessary to equip Ukraine for victory?
That's an important question, and one I don't have an answer to. What is the west's definition of 'victory' for Ukraine?
And I fear it varies from country to country. The Baltics and many eastern European states want to see Russia sent with its tail packing. I think the UK are slightly less on the bandwagon; Germany is very reticent to see a Russian 'defeat', whilst the USA does not seem to know what it is doing, because it is all being confused by crass internal politics.
But Ukraine is doing well even with the stuff we're sending, against an enemy most people thought would easily beat them. Russia has been utterly humiliated already in this war.
I mentioned SKS’ stamina and age on here about 3 days ago.
D’ya reckon Sunak’s team are rummaging around on politicalbetting.com for ideas?
They were pushing the same line 3 days ago.
It's been clear that the "Sleepy Keith" attack has been bubbling under the surface for a while now.
Witness the selectively-edited clips that appear any time he ever stumbles whilst speaking, but which don't manage to show Rishi's leaden-footed responses. And the comments about him being red-faced, or his grey hair. And calling him "low energy". And the amplification of Mandelson's complaints about his paunch.
And now we have this stuff about him being too tired to campaign - which started on the day Rishi took a day off!
Expect much, much more of this - Rishi is young and energetic, SKS is clapped out and forgetful. Probably not from any senior Tory directly, but there'll be plenty of it from their troll farms & Facebook ads.
And I guess there is a chance that it'll prove an effective counter to the Labour "ming vase" strategy - they'll be hoping that SKS is needled into making a mistake, which they'll then be able to centre the rest of their campaign on.
There's definitely a risk of it backfiring, though, especially given the age range of the Refuk-leaners that they're trying to win back!
When the war ends - even with a Russian 'victory' - their economy will be utterly in the shitter (and it's already bad); especially if the sanctions remain.
Also, as an aside, what's the point of this argument? When have I ever argued that Russia is great and strong?
If Ukraine ends up losing it will be because the West has chosen to let Ukraine lose. I will take precious little comfort from Russia's self-inflicted economic devastation. That will be kinda incidental compared to the devastation suffered by Ukraine, and it wouldn't be sufficient to deter China.
On the contrary, we would have shown China that we would let them take Taiwan, rather than exert ourselves to support them.
I don't think people here fully grasp what a moment this is, coming up on 4th July. Absent an almighty shock we are going to see something which although not quite Haley’s comet is nevertheless a vanishingly rare event - a change of governing party at Westminster. In my entire adult life, as I have ripened from callow teen to the sweet old fruit I am today, 45 winters and 44 summers, I've experienced this only twice. So I don't go with all this 'yawn' and 'no enthusiasm' talk. I'm excited.
Changing one set of lying useless arseholes for another set of lying useless arseholes is far from exciting.
I must be young at heart since it seems to be my generation which thinks this is an excellent idea (having skipped it ourselves) but I think that the last thing our young require is another delay in starting out on life. We already have people staying at school until they are 18 and then the majority going on to University or college for another 3-4 years, more in some cases. So, right now, you are looking for your first job in your early 20s. Are we really going to make it mid 20s and what are the pension implications of that?
Its a silly idea. Much better to spend the money giving training so that our young can start to fill our skills gaps ASAP. National service or apprenticeships? It's a no brainer for every sort of reason.
I must sadly agree. One of the really sad things we have done over the past decades is to blur the line between children and adults, with the inevitable infantilized adults. Education is a process designed to enable children to become independent when they achieve adulthood, so that they can get a job, form relationships, have children of their own, buy a house, and raise them. By pushing each stage back into their 20s and 30s we are disabling them.
Your apprenticeships idea is a good one and would help cure this problem.
When I was at UCL in the 90s, we had a good half dozen in the class of mature students. People who failed to go to university, failed the first degree etc.
They all did very well, IIRC.
In my last year, we had a hilarious chap from the oil rigs. He'd made a pile and decided to take three years out to get a degree. Mad Max biker - was parking his Harley next to Dean Vernon Wormer's official car within about ten minutes of arriving (he just chatted to security and they were his best mates) - all the piercings and tattoos.
His plan was to do the degree, then back to the rigs and do a Masters/PhD while working. He figured that between being a roughneck and having all the academics he would zoom up the ladder.
One reason I went to Bradford was their specialism in thin sandwich courses, which gave me an 18 month apprenticeship by the time I graduated.
The cost was no summer holidays.
That was in 1985-1988. There is nothing new under the sun, to quote the philosopher.
In other F-16 news, Ukrainian Crew Training Plan C looks like it's finally coming together. Plan A was a multi-national centre in Romania. Nobody would pay for it. Plan B was Denmark which has gone very murky and produced no crew. Plan C is apparently Arizona ANG.
Presumably a training capability more independent of the US will develop over time. Part and parcel of the increase in European defence spending.
Don't expect @Dura_Ace to have accurate intel on these matters. I'm also surprised that someone who claims to have been involved in the military is surprised that the number of combatants produced for an active conflict is 'murky'..
The F-16 training has taken longer than initially estimated. Help for Ukraine is still slow, late and insufficient.
There was a report the other day that Russia was producing 3x as many 152mm shells as the US and Europe was producing 155mm shells.
The West was supposed to be able to use its economic strength to easily produce more military equipment and ammunition than Russia. This has ended up being an embarrassing failure.
Yes and no. Yes, we are not going as fast as we should, or promised.
On the other hand, Russia is turning increasingly large and significant parts of its economy to produce what will soon be hunks of scrap metal in Ukraine, and begging and borrowing from those titans of military production, Iran and North Korea, whilst the 'west' have not even finished buffing their nails.
When the war ends - even with a Russian 'victory' - their economy will be utterly in the shitter (and it's already bad); especially if the sanctions remain.
We're 27 months in. When is the West going to decide to do what is necessary to equip Ukraine for victory?
I don't think anybody really knows what is necessary and it's politically difficult to shovel in significantly more cash. I also don't think Western governments trust Ukraine to execute a huge offensive that would reset the game after the much trumpeted counter-offensive did nothing.
Is it possible the Tory campaign is being run by an 18 year-old forced against his or her will to do it?
I suspect it's being run by very inexperienced people whereas Labour has basically got the 1997 team back together.
Personally I think Levido has a lot to answer for. I am not sure where this idea of him being a tactical genius has really come from, he doesn't seem to have achieved anything positive.
When did you work in the Bank of England? My research says you were only there briefly as a graduate hire…. @RachelReevesMP Certainly no true dates your Wikipedia page - all very very vague. Plagiarism again? Buffing a CV? And u have never run a business. Or come close to it.
Rachel Reeves worked for the Bank of England for six years, which is the same as Emily Sheffield's brother-in-law's term as Prime Minister.
ROFL
The foreign secretary's sister-in-law displaying the research skills you’d expect of someone parachuted into the editor’s job at the Evening Standard because she knew the right people.
In other F-16 news, Ukrainian Crew Training Plan C looks like it's finally coming together. Plan A was a multi-national centre in Romania. Nobody would pay for it. Plan B was Denmark which has gone very murky and produced no crew. Plan C is apparently Arizona ANG.
Presumably a training capability more independent of the US will develop over time. Part and parcel of the increase in European defence spending.
Don't expect @Dura_Ace to have accurate intel on these matters. I'm also surprised that someone who claims to have been involved in the military is surprised that the number of combatants produced for an active conflict is 'murky'..
The F-16 training has taken longer than initially estimated. Help for Ukraine is still slow, late and insufficient.
There was a report the other day that Russia was producing 3x as many 152mm shells as the US and Europe was producing 155mm shells.
The West was supposed to be able to use its economic strength to easily produce more military equipment and ammunition than Russia. This has ended up being an embarrassing failure.
Yes and no. Yes, we are not going as fast as we should, or promised.
On the other hand, Russia is turning increasingly large and significant parts of its economy to produce what will soon be hunks of scrap metal in Ukraine, and begging and borrowing from those titans of military production, Iran and North Korea, whilst the 'west' have not even finished buffing their nails.
When the war ends - even with a Russian 'victory' - their economy will be utterly in the shitter (and it's already bad); especially if the sanctions remain.
We're 27 months in. When is the West going to decide to do what is necessary to equip Ukraine for victory?
That's an important question, and one I don't have an answer to. What is the west's definition of 'victory' for Ukraine?
And I fear it varies from country to country. The Baltics and many eastern European states want to see Russia sent with its tail packing. I think the UK are slightly less on the bandwagon; Germany is very reticent to see a Russian 'defeat', whilst the USA does not seem to know what it is doing, because it is all being confused by crass internal politics.
But Ukraine is doing well even with the stuff we're sending, against an enemy most people thought would easily beat them. Russia has been utterly humiliated already in this war.
The cynic in me thinks the West is deliberately prolonging this conflict by giving the Ukrainians only what they need to keep the meat grinder going.
As I was saying the other night the long term battle is a demographic one - Russia already had a demographic crisis, the war has greatly exacerbated it.
The US gets to decimate* the population of Russian fighting age men, as well as grind their economy down, all without a single US soldier coming home in a body bag. This increases, the longer the war goes on. Why would it be in their interests for the war to stop?
(*considerably more than decimate, if used in the Roman sense).
I mentioned SKS’ stamina and age on here about 3 days ago.
D’ya reckon Sunak’s team are rummaging around on politicalbetting.com for ideas?
They were pushing the same line 3 days ago.
It's been clear that the "Sleepy Keith" attack has been bubbling under the surface for a while now.
Witness the selectively-edited clips that appear any time he ever stumbles whilst speaking, but which don't manage to show Rishi's leaden-footed responses. And the comments about him being red-faced, or his grey hair. And calling him "low energy". And the amplification of Mandelson's complaints about his paunch.
And now we have this stuff about him being too tired to campaign - which started on the day Rishi took a day off!
Expect much, much more of this - Rishi is young and energetic, SKS is clapped out and forgetful. Probably not from any senior Tory directly, but there'll be plenty of it from their troll farms & Facebook ads.
And I guess there is a chance that it'll prove an effective counter to the Labour "ming vase" strategy - they'll be hoping that SKS is needled into making a mistake, which they'll then be able to centre the rest of their campaign on.
There's definitely a risk of it backfiring, though, especially given the age range of the Refuk-leaners that they're trying to win back!
If it's a serious strategy rather than panic that makes it even worse. Starmer - whatever else you think of him - is years below retirement age and looks young for it.
Most people would say he's younger than, say, Michael Gove. Or Nigel Farage.
Honestly, CCHQ must have some of the stupidest people in the country working for it at the moment. Probably because those are the only people below pensionable age still voting Tory.
"Dan Neidle @DanNeidle · 1h Most of the tax gap is small businesses receiving payment in cash and not filing properly (accidentally or deliberately). This is not a very politically convenient answer, but it is nevertheless the truth."
As far as I can see this practice is absolutely rife amongst small traders like builders and plumbers.
I’ve known a couple of tradies, and they’ve told me of others they know, who have had literally tens of thousands of pounds in cash stashed in their houses that they struggled to get rid of. A lovely problem to have.
A mate of mine used to work for a bloke who had suitcases full of 20s under his bed - when the design changed and he had to get rid of them before they were withdrawn he wasn’t happy.
Not managing to get through to the article there but I am going for "not very".
Presumably, if it was possible, the current cabinet and the Chancellor in particular should be getting surcharged for the failure to recover it over the last decade?
Sainsbury's sitrep: they've stopped selling the glass bottles of Coke and small bottles of water I like and because it was crowded with people at the till taking short naps and querying the price of Lego, I missed the 70/1 winner of the first race at Yarmouth.
In other F-16 news, Ukrainian Crew Training Plan C looks like it's finally coming together. Plan A was a multi-national centre in Romania. Nobody would pay for it. Plan B was Denmark which has gone very murky and produced no crew. Plan C is apparently Arizona ANG.
Presumably a training capability more independent of the US will develop over time. Part and parcel of the increase in European defence spending.
Don't expect @Dura_Ace to have accurate intel on these matters. I'm also surprised that someone who claims to have been involved in the military is surprised that the number of combatants produced for an active conflict is 'murky'..
The F-16 training has taken longer than initially estimated. Help for Ukraine is still slow, late and insufficient.
There was a report the other day that Russia was producing 3x as many 152mm shells as the US and Europe was producing 155mm shells.
The West was supposed to be able to use its economic strength to easily produce more military equipment and ammunition than Russia. This has ended up being an embarrassing failure.
Yes and no. Yes, we are not going as fast as we should, or promised.
On the other hand, Russia is turning increasingly large and significant parts of its economy to produce what will soon be hunks of scrap metal in Ukraine, and begging and borrowing from those titans of military production, Iran and North Korea, whilst the 'west' have not even finished buffing their nails.
When the war ends - even with a Russian 'victory' - their economy will be utterly in the shitter (and it's already bad); especially if the sanctions remain.
We're 27 months in. When is the West going to decide to do what is necessary to equip Ukraine for victory?
That's an important question, and one I don't have an answer to. What is the west's definition of 'victory' for Ukraine?
And I fear it varies from country to country. The Baltics and many eastern European states want to see Russia sent with its tail packing. I think the UK are slightly less on the bandwagon; Germany is very reticent to see a Russian 'defeat', whilst the USA does not seem to know what it is doing, because it is all being confused by crass internal politics.
But Ukraine is doing well even with the stuff we're sending, against an enemy most people thought would easily beat them. Russia has been utterly humiliated already in this war.
The cynic in me thinks the West is deliberately prolonging this conflict by giving the Ukrainians only what they need to keep the meat grinder going.
As I was saying the other night the long term battle is a demographic one - Russia already had a demographic crisis, the war has greatly exacerbated it.
The US gets to decimate* the population of Russian fighting age men, as well as grind their economy down, all without a single US soldier coming home in a body bag. This increases, the longer the war goes on. Why would it be in their interests for the war to stop?
(*considerably more than decimate, if used in the Roman sense).
It is not in the West’s interests to slaughter the Russian population. The best outcome for the West is a happy, prosperous, democratic Russia that doesn’t attack its neighbours, but does buy our consumer goods.
In other F-16 news, Ukrainian Crew Training Plan C looks like it's finally coming together. Plan A was a multi-national centre in Romania. Nobody would pay for it. Plan B was Denmark which has gone very murky and produced no crew. Plan C is apparently Arizona ANG.
Presumably a training capability more independent of the US will develop over time. Part and parcel of the increase in European defence spending.
Don't expect @Dura_Ace to have accurate intel on these matters. I'm also surprised that someone who claims to have been involved in the military is surprised that the number of combatants produced for an active conflict is 'murky'..
The F-16 training has taken longer than initially estimated. Help for Ukraine is still slow, late and insufficient.
There was a report the other day that Russia was producing 3x as many 152mm shells as the US and Europe was producing 155mm shells.
The West was supposed to be able to use its economic strength to easily produce more military equipment and ammunition than Russia. This has ended up being an embarrassing failure.
Yes and no. Yes, we are not going as fast as we should, or promised.
On the other hand, Russia is turning increasingly large and significant parts of its economy to produce what will soon be hunks of scrap metal in Ukraine, and begging and borrowing from those titans of military production, Iran and North Korea, whilst the 'west' have not even finished buffing their nails.
When the war ends - even with a Russian 'victory' - their economy will be utterly in the shitter (and it's already bad); especially if the sanctions remain.
We're 27 months in. When is the West going to decide to do what is necessary to equip Ukraine for victory?
That's an important question, and one I don't have an answer to. What is the west's definition of 'victory' for Ukraine?
And I fear it varies from country to country. The Baltics and many eastern European states want to see Russia sent with its tail packing. I think the UK are slightly less on the bandwagon; Germany is very reticent to see a Russian 'defeat', whilst the USA does not seem to know what it is doing, because it is all being confused by crass internal politics.
But Ukraine is doing well even with the stuff we're sending, against an enemy most people thought would easily beat them. Russia has been utterly humiliated already in this war.
The cynic in me thinks the West is deliberately prolonging this conflict by giving the Ukrainians only what they need to keep the meat grinder going.
As I was saying the other night the long term battle is a demographic one - Russia already had a demographic crisis, the war has greatly exacerbated it.
The US gets to decimate* the population of Russian fighting age men, as well as grind their economy down, all without a single US soldier coming home in a body bag. This increases, the longer the war goes on. Why would it be in their interests for the war to stop?
(*considerably more than decimate, if used in the Roman sense).
Decimate may eventually be about right, for once.
Russia has about 20 million million aged 18-40. Less half a million, presumably.
Nothing to do with me mate. Also what UN doing , they have not even managed to get their noses out of the trough long enough to do anything about it. Both sides are to blame, Hamas could have stopped it long ago if they released the hostages , no chance Israel will stop till they have all the hostages back , dead or alive or they run out of bombs and bullets. Rubicon has been well crossed.
I don't think people here fully grasp what a moment this is, coming up on 4th July. Absent an almighty shock we are going to see something which although not quite Haley’s comet is nevertheless a vanishingly rare event - a change of governing party at Westminster. In my entire adult life, as I have ripened from callow teen to the sweet old fruit I am today, 45 winters and 44 summers, I've experienced this only twice. So I don't go with all this 'yawn' and 'no enthusiasm' talk. I'm excited.
Tory Labour Tory Labour Tory Labour Tory
That's the record in my lifetime when it comes to change of government. The outcomes are as predictable as the outcome of birth being either a boy or a girl. (I am more interested in that, as two grandchildren are on the way).
In other F-16 news, Ukrainian Crew Training Plan C looks like it's finally coming together. Plan A was a multi-national centre in Romania. Nobody would pay for it. Plan B was Denmark which has gone very murky and produced no crew. Plan C is apparently Arizona ANG.
Presumably a training capability more independent of the US will develop over time. Part and parcel of the increase in European defence spending.
Don't expect @Dura_Ace to have accurate intel on these matters. I'm also surprised that someone who claims to have been involved in the military is surprised that the number of combatants produced for an active conflict is 'murky'..
The F-16 training has taken longer than initially estimated. Help for Ukraine is still slow, late and insufficient.
There was a report the other day that Russia was producing 3x as many 152mm shells as the US and Europe was producing 155mm shells.
The West was supposed to be able to use its economic strength to easily produce more military equipment and ammunition than Russia. This has ended up being an embarrassing failure.
Yes and no. Yes, we are not going as fast as we should, or promised.
On the other hand, Russia is turning increasingly large and significant parts of its economy to produce what will soon be hunks of scrap metal in Ukraine, and begging and borrowing from those titans of military production, Iran and North Korea, whilst the 'west' have not even finished buffing their nails.
When the war ends - even with a Russian 'victory' - their economy will be utterly in the shitter (and it's already bad); especially if the sanctions remain.
We're 27 months in. When is the West going to decide to do what is necessary to equip Ukraine for victory?
That's an important question, and one I don't have an answer to. What is the west's definition of 'victory' for Ukraine?
And I fear it varies from country to country. The Baltics and many eastern European states want to see Russia sent with its tail packing. I think the UK are slightly less on the bandwagon; Germany is very reticent to see a Russian 'defeat', whilst the USA does not seem to know what it is doing, because it is all being confused by crass internal politics.
But Ukraine is doing well even with the stuff we're sending, against an enemy most people thought would easily beat them. Russia has been utterly humiliated already in this war.
The cynic in me thinks the West is deliberately prolonging this conflict by giving the Ukrainians only what they need to keep the meat grinder going.
As I was saying the other night the long term battle is a demographic one - Russia already had a demographic crisis, the war has greatly exacerbated it.
The US gets to decimate* the population of Russian fighting age men, as well as grind their economy down, all without a single US soldier coming home in a body bag. This increases, the longer the war goes on. Why would it be in their interests for the war to stop?
(*considerably more than decimate, if used in the Roman sense).
A decidedly Luttwakian interpretation; no doubt the Grande Dame of grande stratégie would approve if so.
In other F-16 news, Ukrainian Crew Training Plan C looks like it's finally coming together. Plan A was a multi-national centre in Romania. Nobody would pay for it. Plan B was Denmark which has gone very murky and produced no crew. Plan C is apparently Arizona ANG.
Presumably a training capability more independent of the US will develop over time. Part and parcel of the increase in European defence spending.
Don't expect @Dura_Ace to have accurate intel on these matters. I'm also surprised that someone who claims to have been involved in the military is surprised that the number of combatants produced for an active conflict is 'murky'..
The F-16 training has taken longer than initially estimated. Help for Ukraine is still slow, late and insufficient.
There was a report the other day that Russia was producing 3x as many 152mm shells as the US and Europe was producing 155mm shells.
The West was supposed to be able to use its economic strength to easily produce more military equipment and ammunition than Russia. This has ended up being an embarrassing failure.
Yes and no. Yes, we are not going as fast as we should, or promised.
On the other hand, Russia is turning increasingly large and significant parts of its economy to produce what will soon be hunks of scrap metal in Ukraine, and begging and borrowing from those titans of military production, Iran and North Korea, whilst the 'west' have not even finished buffing their nails.
When the war ends - even with a Russian 'victory' - their economy will be utterly in the shitter (and it's already bad); especially if the sanctions remain.
We're 27 months in. When is the West going to decide to do what is necessary to equip Ukraine for victory?
I don't think anybody really knows what is necessary and it's politically difficult to shovel in significantly more cash. I also don't think Western governments trust Ukraine to execute a huge offensive that would reset the game after the much trumpeted counter-offensive did nothing.
Basically mistrust and donor fatigue.
They could let them bomb the F**k out of Russia for a starter rather than tying their hands behind their back. Only allowing them to use weapons in their own country while Russians bomb the F**k out of them from safety in Russia is piss poor and shows they don't really want Ukraine to win due to being a bunch of spineless cowards.
Not managing to get through to the article there but I am going for "not very".
Presumably, if it was possible, the current cabinet and the Chancellor in particular should be getting surcharged for the failure to recover it over the last decade?
It’s worth reading the thread. Neidle says it is possible, but it’s not straightforward and it might be unpopular.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
I sometimes think that the lessons that we have drawn from the Second World War can cloud our judgment about whether getting involved in a conflict is in our national interests or not. Aggressive war is always a tragedy and we’d always like to see the aggressor lose but that’s not enough to justify involvement. Clearly it was in our interests to not let Putin win in Ukraine too cheaply and that’s largely been achieved but is it so wrong to consider a point where further involvement is detrimental to our interests?
When the war ends - even with a Russian 'victory' - their economy will be utterly in the shitter (and it's already bad); especially if the sanctions remain.
Also, as an aside, what's the point of this argument? When have I ever argued that Russia is great and strong?
If Ukraine ends up losing it will be because the West has chosen to let Ukraine lose. I will take precious little comfort from Russia's self-inflicted economic devastation. That will be kinda incidental compared to the devastation suffered by Ukraine, and it wouldn't be sufficient to deter China.
On the contrary, we would have shown China that we would let them take Taiwan, rather than exert ourselves to support them.
I didn't intend to give the impression you were of the 'Russia Stronk!' mindset.
My intent was to mention that a material 'victory' - in the sense of being better-off than if they had not started the war - is further away than ever for Russia. They are poorer and diminished, and will remain so for some time, especially if the sanctions remain.
Incidentally, China really worries me. They have built up quite a military force - especially with the Navy - and there will be factions who want to see that force used before it becomes very expensive. I'm slightly surprised China has not already made a move - though their current actions around Taiwan might be a start. P'haps.
Not managing to get through to the article there but I am going for "not very".
Presumably, if it was possible, the current cabinet and the Chancellor in particular should be getting surcharged for the failure to recover it over the last decade?
That's only about 1,200 Zahawis, or a few dozen Akshatas, as I am sure the Tories will be eager to point out
I don't think people here fully grasp what a moment this is, coming up on 4th July. Absent an almighty shock we are going to see something which although not quite Haley’s comet is nevertheless a vanishingly rare event - a change of governing party at Westminster. In my entire adult life, as I have ripened from callow teen to the sweet old fruit I am today, 45 winters and 44 summers, I've experienced this only twice. So I don't go with all this 'yawn' and 'no enthusiasm' talk. I'm excited.
Speaking of Halley's comet, aren't we due a planetary alignment in a week or so? Not that you can ever see what the astronomers promise.
In other F-16 news, Ukrainian Crew Training Plan C looks like it's finally coming together. Plan A was a multi-national centre in Romania. Nobody would pay for it. Plan B was Denmark which has gone very murky and produced no crew. Plan C is apparently Arizona ANG.
Presumably a training capability more independent of the US will develop over time. Part and parcel of the increase in European defence spending.
Don't expect @Dura_Ace to have accurate intel on these matters. I'm also surprised that someone who claims to have been involved in the military is surprised that the number of combatants produced for an active conflict is 'murky'..
The F-16 training has taken longer than initially estimated. Help for Ukraine is still slow, late and insufficient.
There was a report the other day that Russia was producing 3x as many 152mm shells as the US and Europe was producing 155mm shells.
The West was supposed to be able to use its economic strength to easily produce more military equipment and ammunition than Russia. This has ended up being an embarrassing failure.
Yes and no. Yes, we are not going as fast as we should, or promised.
On the other hand, Russia is turning increasingly large and significant parts of its economy to produce what will soon be hunks of scrap metal in Ukraine, and begging and borrowing from those titans of military production, Iran and North Korea, whilst the 'west' have not even finished buffing their nails.
When the war ends - even with a Russian 'victory' - their economy will be utterly in the shitter (and it's already bad); especially if the sanctions remain.
We're 27 months in. When is the West going to decide to do what is necessary to equip Ukraine for victory?
That's an important question, and one I don't have an answer to. What is the west's definition of 'victory' for Ukraine?
And I fear it varies from country to country. The Baltics and many eastern European states want to see Russia sent with its tail packing. I think the UK are slightly less on the bandwagon; Germany is very reticent to see a Russian 'defeat', whilst the USA does not seem to know what it is doing, because it is all being confused by crass internal politics.
But Ukraine is doing well even with the stuff we're sending, against an enemy most people thought would easily beat them. Russia has been utterly humiliated already in this war.
The cynic in me thinks the West is deliberately prolonging this conflict by giving the Ukrainians only what they need to keep the meat grinder going.
As I was saying the other night the long term battle is a demographic one - Russia already had a demographic crisis, the war has greatly exacerbated it.
The US gets to decimate* the population of Russian fighting age men, as well as grind their economy down, all without a single US soldier coming home in a body bag. This increases, the longer the war goes on. Why would it be in their interests for the war to stop?
(*considerably more than decimate, if used in the Roman sense).
It is not in the West’s interests to slaughter the Russian population. The best outcome for the West is a happy, prosperous, democratic Russia that doesn’t attack its neighbours, but does buy our consumer goods.
You and I might think that, but do the top brass in the US Army? I'm not advocating my previous post as a policy position, rather making a cynical observation that the West appears to be supplying the Ukrainians with just enough to keep the meat grinder going.
Another cynical observation might be that it's good for the weapons manufacturers, too. War is good for business...
Can anyone beat that? Has anyone else had an unusual skin condition with a strange name that formed a simulacrum of the face of a barely remembered political figure on a particularly intimate part of their anatomy?
Just a reminder, Leon.
Your photo quota today is zero
A cousin of mine who worked at Halford’s suffered a sporadic but sharp case of vitiligo where the unmistakeable image of Donald Dewer making a speech would appear on his buttocks, but only during the winter
Halfords have a zero enforcement (or even) care policy on shoplifting. I don't think I have paid for a 10mm socket for about five years.
Just remember a ten pound item lifted from Halfords could be bought at the motor factors for £2.50.
In other F-16 news, Ukrainian Crew Training Plan C looks like it's finally coming together. Plan A was a multi-national centre in Romania. Nobody would pay for it. Plan B was Denmark which has gone very murky and produced no crew. Plan C is apparently Arizona ANG.
Presumably a training capability more independent of the US will develop over time. Part and parcel of the increase in European defence spending.
Don't expect @Dura_Ace to have accurate intel on these matters. I'm also surprised that someone who claims to have been involved in the military is surprised that the number of combatants produced for an active conflict is 'murky'..
The F-16 training has taken longer than initially estimated. Help for Ukraine is still slow, late and insufficient.
There was a report the other day that Russia was producing 3x as many 152mm shells as the US and Europe was producing 155mm shells.
The West was supposed to be able to use its economic strength to easily produce more military equipment and ammunition than Russia. This has ended up being an embarrassing failure.
Yes and no. Yes, we are not going as fast as we should, or promised.
On the other hand, Russia is turning increasingly large and significant parts of its economy to produce what will soon be hunks of scrap metal in Ukraine, and begging and borrowing from those titans of military production, Iran and North Korea, whilst the 'west' have not even finished buffing their nails.
When the war ends - even with a Russian 'victory' - their economy will be utterly in the shitter (and it's already bad); especially if the sanctions remain.
We're 27 months in. When is the West going to decide to do what is necessary to equip Ukraine for victory?
That's an important question, and one I don't have an answer to. What is the west's definition of 'victory' for Ukraine?
And I fear it varies from country to country. The Baltics and many eastern European states want to see Russia sent with its tail packing. I think the UK are slightly less on the bandwagon; Germany is very reticent to see a Russian 'defeat', whilst the USA does not seem to know what it is doing, because it is all being confused by crass internal politics.
But Ukraine is doing well even with the stuff we're sending, against an enemy most people thought would easily beat them. Russia has been utterly humiliated already in this war.
It looks like a lot of them think Russia getting the east of the country as a minimum is a result.
James Daly, deputy chairman of the Tory party, has tried to rule out this idea of parents being punished if teenagers don't take up national service.
He tells @CalumAM that Trevelyan "certainly doesn't have responsibility for this area" and pointed out that the home secretary James Cleverly was "saying something very different" yesterday.
But Daly says it'll be up the prime minister to finalise the "excellent policy".
Not managing to get through to the article there but I am going for "not very".
Presumably, if it was possible, the current cabinet and the Chancellor in particular should be getting surcharged for the failure to recover it over the last decade?
It’s worth reading the thread. Neidle says it is possible, but it’s not straightforward and it might be unpopular.
The price I would have to pay would be joining X. I'll pass.
In other F-16 news, Ukrainian Crew Training Plan C looks like it's finally coming together. Plan A was a multi-national centre in Romania. Nobody would pay for it. Plan B was Denmark which has gone very murky and produced no crew. Plan C is apparently Arizona ANG.
Presumably a training capability more independent of the US will develop over time. Part and parcel of the increase in European defence spending.
Don't expect @Dura_Ace to have accurate intel on these matters. I'm also surprised that someone who claims to have been involved in the military is surprised that the number of combatants produced for an active conflict is 'murky'..
The F-16 training has taken longer than initially estimated. Help for Ukraine is still slow, late and insufficient.
There was a report the other day that Russia was producing 3x as many 152mm shells as the US and Europe was producing 155mm shells.
The West was supposed to be able to use its economic strength to easily produce more military equipment and ammunition than Russia. This has ended up being an embarrassing failure.
Yes and no. Yes, we are not going as fast as we should, or promised.
On the other hand, Russia is turning increasingly large and significant parts of its economy to produce what will soon be hunks of scrap metal in Ukraine, and begging and borrowing from those titans of military production, Iran and North Korea, whilst the 'west' have not even finished buffing their nails.
When the war ends - even with a Russian 'victory' - their economy will be utterly in the shitter (and it's already bad); especially if the sanctions remain.
We're 27 months in. When is the West going to decide to do what is necessary to equip Ukraine for victory?
That's an important question, and one I don't have an answer to. What is the west's definition of 'victory' for Ukraine?
And I fear it varies from country to country. The Baltics and many eastern European states want to see Russia sent with its tail packing. I think the UK are slightly less on the bandwagon; Germany is very reticent to see a Russian 'defeat', whilst the USA does not seem to know what it is doing, because it is all being confused by crass internal politics.
But Ukraine is doing well even with the stuff we're sending, against an enemy most people thought would easily beat them. Russia has been utterly humiliated already in this war.
The cynic in me thinks the West is deliberately prolonging this conflict by giving the Ukrainians only what they need to keep the meat grinder going.
As I was saying the other night the long term battle is a demographic one - Russia already had a demographic crisis, the war has greatly exacerbated it.
The US gets to decimate* the population of Russian fighting age men, as well as grind their economy down, all without a single US soldier coming home in a body bag. This increases, the longer the war goes on. Why would it be in their interests for the war to stop?
(*considerably more than decimate, if used in the Roman sense).
Decimate may eventually be about right, for once.
Russia has about 20 million million aged 18-40. Less half a million, presumably.
IMO for Russia to back down from waging this war, it is going to take very, very serious damage for the defeat to stick, and for it not to come back for more.
The last defeats for Russia/USSR near its own borders that stuck I can see (Wikipedia list, but it looks about right), and Russia/USSR did not return for more than a generation, are:
Afghan War 1979 Afghan War 1929 World War 1 - various, many reversed around WW2 Russo-Japan War 1904-5
I don't think people here fully grasp what a moment this is, coming up on 4th July. Absent an almighty shock we are going to see something which although not quite Haley’s comet is nevertheless a vanishingly rare event - a change of governing party at Westminster. In my entire adult life, as I have ripened from callow teen to the sweet old fruit I am today, 45 winters and 44 summers, I've experienced this only twice. So I don't go with all this 'yawn' and 'no enthusiasm' talk. I'm excited.
Great post kinabalu.
You’re absolutely right. IF this happens then it’s a once in a generation event. The last seismic occasions were 1979 and 1997.
The 2010 election brought the curtain down on the New Labour Gov’t less dramatically (NOM coalition) and 2019 was certainly a dramatic election: the Conservatives taking Labour’s Red Wall. 2017 was also very dramatic for all the wrong reasons as far as T. May was concerned.
This one promises to be fairly epic … at the moment.
Anyone saying otherwise is almost certainly a Conservative trying to downplay it.
Can anyone beat that? Has anyone else had an unusual skin condition with a strange name that formed a simulacrum of the face of a barely remembered political figure on a particularly intimate part of their anatomy?
Just a reminder, Leon.
Your photo quota today is zero
A cousin of mine who worked at Halford’s suffered a sporadic but sharp case of vitiligo where the unmistakeable image of Donald Dewer making a speech would appear on his buttocks, but only during the winter
Halfords have a zero enforcement (or even) care policy on shoplifting. I don't think I have paid for a 10mm socket for about five years.
Incredibly I'm off to Halfords (new wipers) right now. Apparently they will fit them for a nominal extra £5. Bet they won't. Too good to be true.
A friend of mine bought a bike from Halfords. I spent a day taking it apart and putting everything back in the right place.
Front fork wrong way photos of Halfords and Walmart bikes crop up weekly on Reddit
I bought a bike from them a few months ago, although I haven't used it much yet. I'm wondering if I should use my daily picture allowance to post a photo of it to see if anyone here can see something wrong with it!
I don't think people here fully grasp what a moment this is, coming up on 4th July. Absent an almighty shock we are going to see something which although not quite Haley’s comet is nevertheless a vanishingly rare event - a change of governing party at Westminster. In my entire adult life, as I have ripened from callow teen to the sweet old fruit I am today, 45 winters and 44 summers, I've experienced this only twice. So I don't go with all this 'yawn' and 'no enthusiasm' talk. I'm excited.
Changing one set of lying useless arseholes for another set of lying useless arseholes is far from exciting.
But a Labour arsehole is fundamentally different to a Tory one. And we're talking here about something that comes along less than once a decade. Think about world cups and olympic games, how momentous each one seems, being only every 4 years. Well, this is almost four times as rare. In fact if we look specifically at the Tories being kicked out of power, I'm 63 and it's happened just once in my adult lifetime. Once.
James Daly, deputy chairman of the Tory party, has tried to rule out this idea of parents being punished if teenagers don't take up national service.
He tells @CalumAM that Trevelyan "certainly doesn't have responsibility for this area" and pointed out that the home secretary James Cleverly was "saying something very different" yesterday.
But Daly says it'll be up the prime minister to finalise the "excellent policy".
Can anyone beat that? Has anyone else had an unusual skin condition with a strange name that formed a simulacrum of the face of a barely remembered political figure on a particularly intimate part of their anatomy?
Just a reminder, Leon.
Your photo quota today is zero
A cousin of mine who worked at Halford’s suffered a sporadic but sharp case of vitiligo where the unmistakeable image of Donald Dewer making a speech would appear on his buttocks, but only during the winter
Halfords have a zero enforcement (or even) care policy on shoplifting. I don't think I have paid for a 10mm socket for about five years.
Incredibly I'm off to Halfords (new wipers) right now. Apparently they will fit them for a nominal extra £5. Bet they won't. Too good to be true.
A friend of mine bought a bike from Halfords. I spent a day taking it apart and putting everything back in the right place.
Front fork wrong way photos of Halfords and Walmart bikes crop up weekly on Reddit
I bought a bike from them a few months ago, although I haven't used it much yet. I'm wondering if I should use my daily picture allowance to post a photo of it to see if anyone here can see something wrong with it!
I think if you are in their scheme you get free fitting.
Mine paid for itself on the first purchase so it is all upside now.
In other F-16 news, Ukrainian Crew Training Plan C looks like it's finally coming together. Plan A was a multi-national centre in Romania. Nobody would pay for it. Plan B was Denmark which has gone very murky and produced no crew. Plan C is apparently Arizona ANG.
Presumably a training capability more independent of the US will develop over time. Part and parcel of the increase in European defence spending.
Don't expect @Dura_Ace to have accurate intel on these matters. I'm also surprised that someone who claims to have been involved in the military is surprised that the number of combatants produced for an active conflict is 'murky'..
The F-16 training has taken longer than initially estimated. Help for Ukraine is still slow, late and insufficient.
There was a report the other day that Russia was producing 3x as many 152mm shells as the US and Europe was producing 155mm shells.
The West was supposed to be able to use its economic strength to easily produce more military equipment and ammunition than Russia. This has ended up being an embarrassing failure.
Yes and no. Yes, we are not going as fast as we should, or promised.
On the other hand, Russia is turning increasingly large and significant parts of its economy to produce what will soon be hunks of scrap metal in Ukraine, and begging and borrowing from those titans of military production, Iran and North Korea, whilst the 'west' have not even finished buffing their nails.
When the war ends - even with a Russian 'victory' - their economy will be utterly in the shitter (and it's already bad); especially if the sanctions remain.
We're 27 months in. When is the West going to decide to do what is necessary to equip Ukraine for victory?
That's an important question, and one I don't have an answer to. What is the west's definition of 'victory' for Ukraine?
And I fear it varies from country to country. The Baltics and many eastern European states want to see Russia sent with its tail packing. I think the UK are slightly less on the bandwagon; Germany is very reticent to see a Russian 'defeat', whilst the USA does not seem to know what it is doing, because it is all being confused by crass internal politics.
But Ukraine is doing well even with the stuff we're sending, against an enemy most people thought would easily beat them. Russia has been utterly humiliated already in this war.
The cynic in me thinks the West is deliberately prolonging this conflict by giving the Ukrainians only what they need to keep the meat grinder going.
As I was saying the other night the long term battle is a demographic one - Russia already had a demographic crisis, the war has greatly exacerbated it.
The US gets to decimate* the population of Russian fighting age men, as well as grind their economy down, all without a single US soldier coming home in a body bag. This increases, the longer the war goes on. Why would it be in their interests for the war to stop?
(*considerably more than decimate, if used in the Roman sense).
If we're talking brutal geopolitics here then neither Russia or Ukraine matter. China matters.
The parallels between Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan should be obvious. If the West supports Ukraine sufficiently that it emerges victorious, then it deters China from trying the same with Taiwan. It demonstrates our willingness to defend a democracy from an invasion by a nuclear-armed dictatorship. If we don't, then it is tantamount to giving China permission to seize Taiwan by force.
The other important audience are every other fragile democracy in Africa and Asia that is wondering to what extent they should accommodate themselves to growing Chinese power. If the West is not a reliable ally then it becomes less important to impress us by creating a pluralistic democratic society, and more important to reach an understanding with the Chinese dictatorship.
In other F-16 news, Ukrainian Crew Training Plan C looks like it's finally coming together. Plan A was a multi-national centre in Romania. Nobody would pay for it. Plan B was Denmark which has gone very murky and produced no crew. Plan C is apparently Arizona ANG.
Presumably a training capability more independent of the US will develop over time. Part and parcel of the increase in European defence spending.
Don't expect @Dura_Ace to have accurate intel on these matters. I'm also surprised that someone who claims to have been involved in the military is surprised that the number of combatants produced for an active conflict is 'murky'..
The F-16 training has taken longer than initially estimated. Help for Ukraine is still slow, late and insufficient.
There was a report the other day that Russia was producing 3x as many 152mm shells as the US and Europe was producing 155mm shells.
The West was supposed to be able to use its economic strength to easily produce more military equipment and ammunition than Russia. This has ended up being an embarrassing failure.
Yes and no. Yes, we are not going as fast as we should, or promised.
On the other hand, Russia is turning increasingly large and significant parts of its economy to produce what will soon be hunks of scrap metal in Ukraine, and begging and borrowing from those titans of military production, Iran and North Korea, whilst the 'west' have not even finished buffing their nails.
When the war ends - even with a Russian 'victory' - their economy will be utterly in the shitter (and it's already bad); especially if the sanctions remain.
We're 27 months in. When is the West going to decide to do what is necessary to equip Ukraine for victory?
That's an important question, and one I don't have an answer to. What is the west's definition of 'victory' for Ukraine?
And I fear it varies from country to country. The Baltics and many eastern European states want to see Russia sent with its tail packing. I think the UK are slightly less on the bandwagon; Germany is very reticent to see a Russian 'defeat', whilst the USA does not seem to know what it is doing, because it is all being confused by crass internal politics.
But Ukraine is doing well even with the stuff we're sending, against an enemy most people thought would easily beat them. Russia has been utterly humiliated already in this war.
The cynic in me thinks the West is deliberately prolonging this conflict by giving the Ukrainians only what they need to keep the meat grinder going.
As I was saying the other night the long term battle is a demographic one - Russia already had a demographic crisis, the war has greatly exacerbated it.
The US gets to decimate* the population of Russian fighting age men, as well as grind their economy down, all without a single US soldier coming home in a body bag. This increases, the longer the war goes on. Why would it be in their interests for the war to stop?
(*considerably more than decimate, if used in the Roman sense).
It is not in the West’s interests to slaughter the Russian population. The best outcome for the West is a happy, prosperous, democratic Russia that doesn’t attack its neighbours, but does buy our consumer goods.
You and I might think that, but do the top brass in the US Army? I'm not advocating my previous post as a policy position, rather making a cynical observation that the West appears to be supplying the Ukrainians with just enough to keep the meat grinder going.
Another cynical observation might be that it's good for the weapons manufacturers, too. War is good for business...
Perhaps there are several factors going on. I don't really believe that serious people want the Ukraine war to continue - it is destabilising and distracting in a negative way. Most people - perhaps even Putin - probably wish it had never started (*).
But the west are in a quandary. I don't think Putin's nuclear saber-rattling is taken too seriously; and America's response to that has been good IMO. But we are short on weaponry, in a war that has shown how quickly man and machine get used up in a modern war. Each country will be asking how much they can give Ukraine, without sacrificing their own capabilities - especially given other threats, e.g. from China towards Taiwan.
Some countries - especially ones such as Estonia - are all-in, as they pretty much reckon that they'll be next in Russia's sights. They are spending 1.4% of GDP on Ukrainian defence, I guess using NATO as a backstop.
Building up production lines takes time and money. Many countries are throwing money at this, but time is the literal killer. If the USA was to supply all its suitable weapons to Ukraine, and then China kicks off (or Iran, or North Korea...), it'll be in trouble.
So it becomes a question of how much we can reduce our stockpiles whilst ensuring that we have enough - in stockpiles that have been significantly reduced over the last three decades. Each country has its own view on that, but in general, the nearer you get to Ukraine, the more you may be willing to give. Because the threat is existential.
(*) In Putin's case, started the way he started it.
James Daly, deputy chairman of the Tory party, has tried to rule out this idea of parents being punished if teenagers don't take up national service.
He tells @CalumAM that Trevelyan "certainly doesn't have responsibility for this area" and pointed out that the home secretary James Cleverly was "saying something very different" yesterday.
But Daly says it'll be up the prime minister to finalise the "excellent policy".
I must get out of this Twitter bubble but goodness me, is it always like this?
Even if we get a Conservative majority James Daly must nonetheless be toast in Bury North. Perhaps he can call in to view Angela Rayner's trial on his way back from the Job Centre.
I don't think people here fully grasp what a moment this is, coming up on 4th July. Absent an almighty shock we are going to see something which although not quite Haley’s comet is nevertheless a vanishingly rare event - a change of governing party at Westminster. In my entire adult life, as I have ripened from callow teen to the sweet old fruit I am today, 45 winters and 44 summers, I've experienced this only twice. So I don't go with all this 'yawn' and 'no enthusiasm' talk. I'm excited.
Changing one set of lying useless arseholes for another set of lying useless arseholes is far from exciting.
But a Labour [are] fundamentally different to Tor[ies]. And we're talking here about something that comes along less than once a decade. Think about world cups and olympic games, how momentous each one seems, being only every 4 years. Well, this is almost four times as rare. In fact if we look specifically at the Tories being kicked out of power, I'm 63 and it's happened just once in my adult lifetime. Once.
Even if you take a cynical view of all politicians, a Labour Gov’t will be very different to the current brand of extremist right wing Conservatives.
So, so, much will change.
Of course, some will deny this, but I’ve heard it every single election and if you read your history it has been said throughout time. The other point to note is that obviously neither Keir Starmer in particular nor the Labour Party in general are going to reveal all their cards now. Why on earth should they when you have a governing party that is so deeply unpopular.
Their confidence will grow, including on policy, if and when they are elected: especially if that’s by a sizeable majority.
"Dan Neidle @DanNeidle · 1h Most of the tax gap is small businesses receiving payment in cash and not filing properly (accidentally or deliberately). This is not a very politically convenient answer, but it is nevertheless the truth."
As far as I can see this practice is absolutely rife amongst small traders like builders and plumbers.
The going rates for academic, 1-1 tuition, start at about £35 per hour and go up.
All the university students are in on it - teaching GCSE very often.
A huge number of state school teachers supplement their income doing this.
As far as I can see, from the consumption side, nearly no one is paying tax on any of it.
Students would not be exceeding their PA. Teachers are more of an issue.
I don't think people here fully grasp what a moment this is, coming up on 4th July. Absent an almighty shock we are going to see something which although not quite Haley’s comet is nevertheless a vanishingly rare event - a change of governing party at Westminster. In my entire adult life, as I have ripened from callow teen to the sweet old fruit I am today, 45 winters and 44 summers, I've experienced this only twice. So I don't go with all this 'yawn' and 'no enthusiasm' talk. I'm excited.
Tory Labour Tory Labour Tory Labour Tory
That's the record in my lifetime when it comes to change of government. The outcomes are as predictable as the outcome of birth being either a boy or a girl. (I am more interested in that, as two grandchildren are on the way).
From my Birth ......... Third Churchill ministry Conservative Eden ministry First Macmillan ministry Second Macmillan ministry Douglas-Home ministry First Wilson ministry Labour Second Wilson ministry Heath ministry Conservative Third Wilson ministry Labour Fourth Wilson ministry Callaghan ministry First Thatcher ministry Conservative Second Thatcher ministry Third Thatcher ministry First Major ministry Second Major ministry First Blair ministry Labour Second Blair ministry Third Blair ministry Brown ministry Cameron–Clegg coalition Conservative / Lib Dems Second Cameron ministry Conservative First May ministry Second May ministry First Johnson ministry Second Johnson ministry Truss ministry Sunak ministry
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
To be honest any kind of agreement that involves a concession to Russia could be deemed appeasement. If you have no other plausible option appease is what you do. So you shouldn't be scolded for asking the question. As for Ukrainian victory there are probably lots of definitions you could consider. Three that come to my mind (in no particular order) would be:
The third of those is obviously the most thorny point right now. My focus would be on making Russia's occupation of Ukraine intolerable. The 6 month delay in weapons from the US caused massive damage not least it seems to Ukrainian air defences (which ran out?). So make sure they have sufficient AD capability. Use the ATACMS and other missile to destroy Russia's ability to make war in Ukraine. This was hugely effective back in 2022 when Russia appeared to have no answer to it. In the end they moved their ammunition dumps further from the front line and out of range of the missiles Ukraine were given. It's crazy that Kharkiv can be under daily assault with no means of replying.
I've no idea whether a future Ukrainian counter offensive would succeed but obviously without air cover they would be sitting ducks. Why the F-16 thing is taking so long I don't know. Putin had two ways of blackmailing Europe. Gas and nuclear escalation. The first hasn't worked and the second increasingly sounds hollow. The position of the Russian economy can surely only get worse. None of this means Ukraine can get a 'total' victory or that they might not want to negotiate a settlement at some point. But we could at least make sure they go to the negotiating table from a position of strength.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
@matt_dathan James Daly, deputy chairman of the Tory party, has tried to rule out this idea of parents being punished if teenagers don't take up national service.
He tells @CalumAM that Trevelyan "certainly doesn't have responsibility for this area" and pointed out that the home secretary James Cleverly was "saying something very different" yesterday.
But Daly says it'll be up the prime minister to finalise the "excellent policy".
@adampayne26 First Northern Ireland minister Steve Baker publicly distances himself from the National Service policy
Now senior Tories disagree among themselves about how it’ll work, with foreign office minister Trevelyan told by James Daly she “certainly doesn't have responsibility” for it
I don't think people here fully grasp what a moment this is, coming up on 4th July. Absent an almighty shock we are going to see something which although not quite Haley’s comet is nevertheless a vanishingly rare event - a change of governing party at Westminster. In my entire adult life, as I have ripened from callow teen to the sweet old fruit I am today, 45 winters and 44 summers, I've experienced this only twice. So I don't go with all this 'yawn' and 'no enthusiasm' talk. I'm excited.
Tory Labour Tory Labour Tory Labour Tory
That's the record in my lifetime when it comes to change of government. The outcomes are as predictable as the outcome of birth being either a boy or a girl. (I am more interested in that, as two grandchildren are on the way).
From my Birth ......... Third Churchill ministry Conservative Eden ministry First Macmillan ministry Second Macmillan ministry Douglas-Home ministry First Wilson ministry Labour Second Wilson ministry Heath ministry Conservative Third Wilson ministry Labour Fourth Wilson ministry Callaghan ministry First Thatcher ministry Conservative Second Thatcher ministry Third Thatcher ministry First Major ministry Second Major ministry First Blair ministry Labour Second Blair ministry Third Blair ministry Brown ministry Cameron–Clegg coalition Conservative / Lib Dems Second Cameron ministry Conservative First May ministry Second May ministry First Johnson ministry Second Johnson ministry Truss ministry Sunak ministry
For me:
Second Macmillan ministry Douglas-Home ministry First Wilson ministry Labour Second Wilson ministry Heath ministry Conservative Third Wilson ministry Labour Fourth Wilson ministry Callaghan ministry First Thatcher ministry Conservative Second Thatcher ministry Third Thatcher ministry First Major ministry Second Major ministry First Blair ministry Labour Second Blair ministry Third Blair ministry Brown ministry Cameron–Clegg coalition Conservative / Lib Dems Second Cameron ministry Conservative First May ministry Second May ministry First Johnson ministry Second Johnson ministry Truss ministry Sunak ministry
I don't think people here fully grasp what a moment this is, coming up on 4th July. Absent an almighty shock we are going to see something which although not quite Haley’s comet is nevertheless a vanishingly rare event - a change of governing party at Westminster. In my entire adult life, as I have ripened from callow teen to the sweet old fruit I am today, 45 winters and 44 summers, I've experienced this only twice. So I don't go with all this 'yawn' and 'no enthusiasm' talk. I'm excited.
Changing one set of lying useless arseholes for another set of lying useless arseholes is far from exciting.
But a Labour arsehole is fundamentally different to a Tory one. And we're talking here about something that comes along less than once a decade. Think about world cups and olympic games, how momentous each one seems, being only every 4 years. Well, this is almost four times as rare. In fact if we look specifically at the Tories being kicked out of power, I'm 63 and it's happened just once in my adult lifetime. Once.
I am totally cynical about all politician's nowadays, they are all only on the make for themselves, grab as much as they can and F*** the public, that includes the silent ones who just take the money and hide except to vote.
Leaked email blames Tory MPs for poor start to election campaign ... Conservative staff accused MPs of focusing too much on ministerial business in a document accidentally emailed to party MPs by a senior campaigning figure at Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ).
I don't think people here fully grasp what a moment this is, coming up on 4th July. Absent an almighty shock we are going to see something which although not quite Haley’s comet is nevertheless a vanishingly rare event - a change of governing party at Westminster. In my entire adult life, as I have ripened from callow teen to the sweet old fruit I am today, 45 winters and 44 summers, I've experienced this only twice. So I don't go with all this 'yawn' and 'no enthusiasm' talk. I'm excited.
Changing one set of lying useless arseholes for another set of lying useless arseholes is far from exciting.
But a Labour [are] fundamentally different to Tor[ies]. And we're talking here about something that comes along less than once a decade. Think about world cups and olympic games, how momentous each one seems, being only every 4 years. Well, this is almost four times as rare. In fact if we look specifically at the Tories being kicked out of power, I'm 63 and it's happened just once in my adult lifetime. Once.
Even if you take a cynical view of all politicians, a Labour Gov’t will be very different to the current brand of extremist right wing Conservatives.
So, so, much will change.
Of course, some will deny this, but I’ve heard it every single election and if you read your history it has been said throughout time. The other point to note is that obviously neither Keir Starmer in particular nor the Labour Party in general are going to reveal all their cards now. Why on earth should they when you have a governing party that is so deeply unpopular.
Their confidence will grow, including on policy, if and when they are elected: especially if that’s by a sizeable majority.
Yes I'm expecting the country to immediately feel better and in due course to be better. These particular Tories with how they've carried on these last few years have gifted Labour the lowest of bars to clear.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
Takeaways from Starmer's first campaign speech: 🏴 big on Englishness 💷 there *is no money left* 🪜 anything not in 'first steps' is low priority 🎒 private school parents "work hard" 🛥️ he wants to stop the boats ⚔️ not quite ruling out national service
"Dan Neidle @DanNeidle · 1h Most of the tax gap is small businesses receiving payment in cash and not filing properly (accidentally or deliberately). This is not a very politically convenient answer, but it is nevertheless the truth."
As far as I can see this practice is absolutely rife amongst small traders like builders and plumbers.
I’ve known a couple of tradies, and they’ve told me of others they know, who have had literally tens of thousands of pounds in cash stashed in their houses that they struggled to get rid of. A lovely problem to have.
A mate of mine used to work for a bloke who had suitcases full of 20s under his bed - when the design changed and he had to get rid of them before they were withdrawn he wasn’t happy.
It would be good if people were more aware of how easy it is to report people they suspect of fiddling and doing everything cash in hand. Whether they get properly investigated I've less idea.
@ZacGoldsmith I understand the anger towards Sunak who has damaged the Party almost beyond repair and all but guaranteed the majority of his MPs will lose their job next month. But it’s hard to muster much sympathy given that none of this would have happened without the complicity of a majority of the Party & what is now unfolding was entirely predictable- indeed predicted. The hope is that when Sunak disappears off to California in a few weeks there are at least some decent MPs left around which to rebuild 🤞🙏🤞
Fantastic video of a journey from Shrewsbury to Welshpool on the National Cycling / Walking Network. Rail trails, canal towpaths, quiet lanes, with a bit of A-road. 41 miles.
Excellent observation and commentary along the way.
"Dan Neidle @DanNeidle · 1h Most of the tax gap is small businesses receiving payment in cash and not filing properly (accidentally or deliberately). This is not a very politically convenient answer, but it is nevertheless the truth."
As far as I can see this practice is absolutely rife amongst small traders like builders and plumbers.
I’ve known a couple of tradies, and they’ve told me of others they know, who have had literally tens of thousands of pounds in cash stashed in their houses that they struggled to get rid of. A lovely problem to have.
A mate of mine used to work for a bloke who had suitcases full of 20s under his bed - when the design changed and he had to get rid of them before they were withdrawn he wasn’t happy.
It would be good if people were more aware of how easy it is to report people they suspect of fiddling and doing everything cash in hand. Whether they get properly investigated I've less idea.
Wouldn't it be better if he stayed on as leader for a bit?
Somewhat mischievously what do people think is a result that would keep Sunak safe as Tory leader. 250 seats? 275?
Edit: Sorry that was meant to be a reply to Sunak going to California.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
"Dan Neidle @DanNeidle · 1h Most of the tax gap is small businesses receiving payment in cash and not filing properly (accidentally or deliberately). This is not a very politically convenient answer, but it is nevertheless the truth."
As far as I can see this practice is absolutely rife amongst small traders like builders and plumbers.
I’ve known a couple of tradies, and they’ve told me of others they know, who have had literally tens of thousands of pounds in cash stashed in their houses that they struggled to get rid of. A lovely problem to have.
A mate of mine used to work for a bloke who had suitcases full of 20s under his bed - when the design changed and he had to get rid of them before they were withdrawn he wasn’t happy.
It would be good if people were more aware of how easy it is to report people they suspect of fiddling and doing everything cash in hand. Whether they get properly investigated I've less idea.
Wouldn't it be better if he stayed on as leader for a bit?
Somewhat mischievously what do people think is a result that would keep Sunak safe as Tory leader. 250 seats? 275?
Edit: Sorry that was meant to be a reply to Sunak going to California.
As is the modern way, Rishi will probably resign anyway. Enthusiasm for pushing him out will depend not on votes in the election but on whether your favoured candidate for leader escaped the toll.
Fantastic video of a journey from Shrewsbury to Welshpool on the National Cycling / Walking Network. Rail trails, canal towpaths, quiet lanes, with a bit of A-road. 41 miles.
Excellent observation and commentary along the way.
Thanks for that. As an aside, ISTR that in ye olden days of British Waterways you needed a licence to ride a bike along a towpath. Is that still the case with the Canals and Rivers Trust?
(I don't think linked videos count for your one-a-day...)
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
Fantastic video of a journey from Shrewsbury to Welshpool on the National Cycling / Walking Network. Rail trails, canal towpaths, quiet lanes, with a bit of A-road. 41 miles.
Excellent observation and commentary along the way.
Thanks for that. As an aside, ISTR that in ye olden days of British Waterways you needed a licence to ride a bike along a towpath. Is that still the case with the Canals and Rivers Trust?
(I don't think linked videos count for your one-a-day...)
@ZacGoldsmith I understand the anger towards Sunak who has damaged the Party almost beyond repair and all but guaranteed the majority of his MPs will lose their job next month. But it’s hard to muster much sympathy given that none of this would have happened without the complicity of a majority of the Party & what is now unfolding was entirely predictable- indeed predicted. The hope is that when Sunak disappears off to California in a few weeks there are at least some decent MPs left around which to rebuild 🤞🙏🤞
Just ignore Zac. Isn't he one of Robert's "c" listers?
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
When you have shits like Orban who can vote down all EU aid the west is pretty pathetic. They like to take a knife to a gunfight.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
James Daly, deputy chairman of the Tory party, has tried to rule out this idea of parents being punished if teenagers don't take up national service.
He tells @CalumAM that Trevelyan "certainly doesn't have responsibility for this area" and pointed out that the home secretary James Cleverly was "saying something very different" yesterday.
But Daly says it'll be up the prime minister to finalise the "excellent policy".
I must get out of this Twitter bubble but goodness me, is it always like this?
Surely the proposal for a Royal Commission was meant to be a way of avoiding such awkward questions.
But Daly lands them back squarely on Sunak's shoulders! With friends like these ...
The problem with parking it to a Royal Commission on this is that enforcement (or not) is fundamental to whether the policy could even work or if it's just a back of a fag packet gimmick. If your policy is that you're compelling people to do something, you have to explain how you're doing that.
Compare that to, say, tuition fees, where we know they need reform and it might work as a way of parking then finding away through an issue in the least contentious way possible.
You can't do that with a policy you are creating, then expect others to solve the problems with it.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
Takeaways from Starmer's first campaign speech: 🏴 big on Englishness 💷 there *is no money left* 🪜 anything not in 'first steps' is low priority 🎒 private school parents "work hard" 🛥️ he wants to stop the boats ⚔️ not quite ruling out national service
He seems to be chasing the same mentally defective boomers as the tories. Do those fuckers all get 5 votes each or something?
Yes. All postal votes filled in by the candidates in the comfort and safety of their own care home.
Or filled in for you by the nice young man from CCHQ tdo save you the cost of the stamp from your care home/retirement bungalow in Thailand or wherever.
I don't think people here fully grasp what a moment this is, coming up on 4th July. Absent an almighty shock we are going to see something which although not quite Haley’s comet is nevertheless a vanishingly rare event - a change of governing party at Westminster. In my entire adult life, as I have ripened from callow teen to the sweet old fruit I am today, 45 winters and 44 summers, I've experienced this only twice. So I don't go with all this 'yawn' and 'no enthusiasm' talk. I'm excited.
Changing one set of lying useless arseholes for another set of lying useless arseholes is far from exciting.
But a Labour arsehole is fundamentally different to a Tory one. And we're talking here about something that comes along less than once a decade. Think about world cups and olympic games, how momentous each one seems, being only every 4 years. Well, this is almost four times as rare. In fact if we look specifically at the Tories being kicked out of power, I'm 63 and it's happened just once in my adult lifetime. Once.
I am totally cynical about all politician's nowadays, they are all only on the make for themselves, grab as much as they can and F*** the public, that includes the silent ones who just take the money and hide except to vote.
"All" is surely overdoing the cynicism. Eg you like Salmond, don't you. And look at the last 3 Labour leaders down here. Brown, Corbyn, Miliband. You might not rate them but they weren't charlatans or phonies out only for themselves. Starmer doesn't seem to be either. Or Reeves or Lammy or Cooper. Course they might turn out to be wrong uns but there's no particular reason to expect that.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
I think with the current Russian leadership, it means making sure that they do not come back for a century.
And - as noted - the ultimate answer is for Russia to become a modern democracy. But that may take some time.
In the meantime it's going to be a new Iron Curtain at the border of Russia.
Fantastic video of a journey from Shrewsbury to Welshpool on the National Cycling / Walking Network. Rail trails, canal towpaths, quiet lanes, with a bit of A-road. 41 miles.
Excellent observation and commentary along the way.
It's a lovely route. There was a bridge over the Severn (Maginnis Bridge) up for sale near Welshpool a few years back that could have cut out one of the biggest climbs. I flagged it to Sustrans but I don't think anything ever happened about it.
I don't think people here fully grasp what a moment this is, coming up on 4th July. Absent an almighty shock we are going to see something which although not quite Haley’s comet is nevertheless a vanishingly rare event - a change of governing party at Westminster. In my entire adult life, as I have ripened from callow teen to the sweet old fruit I am today, 45 winters and 44 summers, I've experienced this only twice. So I don't go with all this 'yawn' and 'no enthusiasm' talk. I'm excited.
Changing one set of lying useless arseholes for another set of lying useless arseholes is far from exciting.
But a Labour arsehole is fundamentally different to a Tory one. And we're talking here about something that comes along less than once a decade. Think about world cups and olympic games, how momentous each one seems, being only every 4 years. Well, this is almost four times as rare. In fact if we look specifically at the Tories being kicked out of power, I'm 63 and it's happened just once in my adult lifetime. Once.
I am totally cynical about all politician's nowadays, they are all only on the make for themselves, grab as much as they can and F*** the public, that includes the silent ones who just take the money and hide except to vote.
"All" is surely overdoing the cynicism. Eg you like Salmond, don't you. And look at the last 3 Labour leaders down here. Brown, Corbyn, Miliband. You might not rate them but they weren't charlatans or phonies out only for themselves. Starmer doesn't seem to be either. Or Reeves or Lammy or Cooper. Course they might turn out to be wrong uns but there's no particular reason to expect that.
Brown was undoubtedly a charlatan. His central political strategy was a kind of confidence trick to convince people he had hidden depths, and he relied on intimidating his rivals into submission.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
Deterrence of a strong foe is harder than deterrence of a weakened one, of course
Comments
https://x.com/bencsmoke/status/1795065499719442843
https://x.com/yanisvaroufakis/status/1795005046649655571?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
And I fear it varies from country to country. The Baltics and many eastern European states want to see Russia sent with its tail packing. I think the UK are slightly less on the bandwagon; Germany is very reticent to see a Russian 'defeat', whilst the USA does not seem to know what it is doing, because it is all being confused by crass internal politics.
But Ukraine is doing well even with the stuff we're sending, against an enemy most people thought would easily beat them. Russia has been utterly humiliated already in this war.
Witness the selectively-edited clips that appear any time he ever stumbles whilst speaking, but which don't manage to show Rishi's leaden-footed responses. And the comments about him being red-faced, or his grey hair. And calling him "low energy". And the amplification of Mandelson's complaints about his paunch.
And now we have this stuff about him being too tired to campaign - which started on the day Rishi took a day off!
Expect much, much more of this - Rishi is young and energetic, SKS is clapped out and forgetful. Probably not from any senior Tory directly, but there'll be plenty of it from their troll farms & Facebook ads.
And I guess there is a chance that it'll prove an effective counter to the Labour "ming vase" strategy - they'll be hoping that SKS is needled into making a mistake, which they'll then be able to centre the rest of their campaign on.
There's definitely a risk of it backfiring, though, especially given the age range of the Refuk-leaners that they're trying to win back!
If Ukraine ends up losing it will be because the West has chosen to let Ukraine lose. I will take precious little comfort from Russia's self-inflicted economic devastation. That will be kinda incidental compared to the devastation suffered by Ukraine, and it wouldn't be sufficient to deter China.
On the contrary, we would have shown China that we would let them take Taiwan, rather than exert ourselves to support them.
The cost was no summer holidays.
That was in 1985-1988. There is nothing new under the sun, to quote the philosopher.
Basically mistrust and donor fatigue.
Personally I think Levido has a lot to answer for. I am not sure where this idea of him being a tactical genius has really come from, he doesn't seem to have achieved anything positive.
As I was saying the other night the long term battle is a demographic one - Russia already had a demographic crisis, the war has greatly exacerbated it.
The US gets to decimate* the population of Russian fighting age men, as well as grind their economy down, all without a single US soldier coming home in a body bag. This increases, the longer the war goes on. Why would it be in their interests for the war to stop?
(*considerably more than decimate, if used in the Roman sense).
Most people would say he's younger than, say, Michael Gove. Or Nigel Farage.
Honestly, CCHQ must have some of the stupidest people in the country working for it at the moment. Probably because those are the only people below pensionable age still voting Tory.
A mate of mine used to work for a bloke who had suitcases full of 20s under his bed - when the design changed and he had to get rid of them before they were withdrawn he wasn’t happy.
Presumably, if it was possible, the current cabinet and the Chancellor in particular should be getting surcharged for the failure to recover it over the last decade?
Russia has about 20 million million aged 18-40. Less half a million, presumably.
Rubicon has been well crossed.
Labour
Tory
Labour
Tory
Labour
Tory
That's the record in my lifetime when it comes to change of government. The outcomes are as predictable as the outcome of birth being either a boy or a girl. (I am more interested in that, as two grandchildren are on the way).
My intent was to mention that a material 'victory' - in the sense of being better-off than if they had not started the war - is further away than ever for Russia. They are poorer and diminished, and will remain so for some time, especially if the sanctions remain.
Incidentally, China really worries me. They have built up quite a military force - especially with the Navy - and there will be factions who want to see that force used before it becomes very expensive. I'm slightly surprised China has not already made a move - though their current actions around Taiwan might be a start. P'haps.
Another cynical observation might be that it's good for the weapons manufacturers, too. War is good for business...
He tells @CalumAM that Trevelyan "certainly doesn't have responsibility for this area" and pointed out that the home secretary James Cleverly was "saying something very different" yesterday.
But Daly says it'll be up the prime minister to finalise the "excellent policy".
https://x.com/matt_dathan/status/1795073191590678988
I must get out of this Twitter bubble but goodness me, is it always like this?
Sadly most are bots, Elon's running of the company going as well as ever, then.
The last defeats for Russia/USSR near its own borders that stuck I can see (Wikipedia list, but it looks about right), and Russia/USSR did not return for more than a generation, are:
Afghan War 1979
Afghan War 1929
World War 1 - various, many reversed around WW2
Russo-Japan War 1904-5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia
You’re absolutely right. IF this happens then it’s a once in a generation event. The last seismic occasions were 1979 and 1997.
The 2010 election brought the curtain down on the New Labour Gov’t less dramatically (NOM coalition) and 2019 was certainly a dramatic election: the Conservatives taking Labour’s Red Wall. 2017 was also very dramatic for all the wrong reasons as far as T. May was concerned.
This one promises to be fairly epic … at the moment.
Anyone saying otherwise is almost certainly a Conservative trying to downplay it.
But Daly lands them back squarely on Sunak's shoulders! With friends like these ...
Mine paid for itself on the first purchase so it is all upside now.
The parallels between Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan should be obvious. If the West supports Ukraine sufficiently that it emerges victorious, then it deters China from trying the same with Taiwan. It demonstrates our willingness to defend a democracy from an invasion by a nuclear-armed dictatorship. If we don't, then it is tantamount to giving China permission to seize Taiwan by force.
The other important audience are every other fragile democracy in Africa and Asia that is wondering to what extent they should accommodate themselves to growing Chinese power. If the West is not a reliable ally then it becomes less important to impress us by creating a pluralistic democratic society, and more important to reach an understanding with the Chinese dictatorship.
But the west are in a quandary. I don't think Putin's nuclear saber-rattling is taken too seriously; and America's response to that has been good IMO. But we are short on weaponry, in a war that has shown how quickly man and machine get used up in a modern war. Each country will be asking how much they can give Ukraine, without sacrificing their own capabilities - especially given other threats, e.g. from China towards Taiwan.
Some countries - especially ones such as Estonia - are all-in, as they pretty much reckon that they'll be next in Russia's sights. They are spending 1.4% of GDP on Ukrainian defence, I guess using NATO as a backstop.
Building up production lines takes time and money. Many countries are throwing money at this, but time is the literal killer. If the USA was to supply all its suitable weapons to Ukraine, and then China kicks off (or Iran, or North Korea...), it'll be in trouble.
So it becomes a question of how much we can reduce our stockpiles whilst ensuring that we have enough - in stockpiles that have been significantly reduced over the last three decades. Each country has its own view on that, but in general, the nearer you get to Ukraine, the more you may be willing to give. Because the threat is existential.
(*) In Putin's case, started the way he started it.
So, so, much will change.
Of course, some will deny this, but I’ve heard it every single election and if you read your history it has been said throughout time. The other point to note is that obviously neither Keir Starmer in particular nor the Labour Party in general are going to reveal all their cards now. Why on earth should they when you have a governing party that is so deeply unpopular.
Their confidence will grow, including on policy, if and when they are elected: especially if that’s by a sizeable majority.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
Third Churchill ministry Conservative
Eden ministry
First Macmillan ministry
Second Macmillan ministry
Douglas-Home ministry
First Wilson ministry Labour
Second Wilson ministry
Heath ministry Conservative
Third Wilson ministry Labour
Fourth Wilson ministry
Callaghan ministry
First Thatcher ministry Conservative
Second Thatcher ministry
Third Thatcher ministry
First Major ministry
Second Major ministry
First Blair ministry Labour
Second Blair ministry
Third Blair ministry
Brown ministry
Cameron–Clegg coalition Conservative / Lib Dems
Second Cameron ministry Conservative
First May ministry
Second May ministry
First Johnson ministry
Second Johnson ministry
Truss ministry
Sunak ministry
1) Security
2) Independence
3) Territorial integrity
The third of those is obviously the most thorny point right now. My focus would be on making Russia's occupation of Ukraine intolerable. The 6 month delay in weapons from the US caused massive damage not least it seems to Ukrainian air defences (which ran out?). So make sure they have sufficient AD capability. Use the ATACMS and other missile to destroy Russia's ability to make war in Ukraine. This was hugely effective back in 2022 when Russia appeared to have no answer to it. In the end they moved their ammunition dumps further from the front line and out of range of the missiles Ukraine were given. It's crazy that Kharkiv can be under daily assault with no means of replying.
I've no idea whether a future Ukrainian counter offensive would succeed but obviously without air cover they would be sitting ducks. Why the F-16 thing is taking so long I don't know. Putin had two ways of blackmailing Europe. Gas and nuclear escalation. The first hasn't worked and the second increasingly sounds hollow. The position of the Russian economy can surely only get worse. None of this means Ukraine can get a 'total' victory or that they might not want to negotiate a settlement at some point. But we could at least make sure they go to the negotiating table from a position of strength.
Fire now turning towards CCHQ’s election chief Isaac Levido from one senior Conservative:
“I am beyond words. They shouldn’t have called it.
“But having chosen to do so… and had 18 months to prepare, Isaac has no excuse for what he has allowed to happen.”
@CJTerry
A reminder that, by all accounts, Levido was the one who warned against going in July
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
James Daly, deputy chairman of the Tory party, has tried to rule out this idea of parents being punished if teenagers don't take up national service.
He tells @CalumAM that Trevelyan "certainly doesn't have responsibility for this area" and pointed out that the home secretary James Cleverly was "saying something very different" yesterday.
But Daly says it'll be up the prime minister to finalise the "excellent policy".
@adampayne26
First Northern Ireland minister Steve Baker publicly distances himself from the National Service policy
Now senior Tories disagree among themselves about how it’ll work, with foreign office minister Trevelyan told by James Daly she “certainly doesn't have responsibility” for it
Second Macmillan ministry
Douglas-Home ministry
First Wilson ministry Labour
Second Wilson ministry
Heath ministry Conservative
Third Wilson ministry Labour
Fourth Wilson ministry
Callaghan ministry
First Thatcher ministry Conservative
Second Thatcher ministry
Third Thatcher ministry
First Major ministry
Second Major ministry
First Blair ministry Labour
Second Blair ministry
Third Blair ministry
Brown ministry
Cameron–Clegg coalition Conservative / Lib Dems
Second Cameron ministry Conservative
First May ministry
Second May ministry
First Johnson ministry
Second Johnson ministry
Truss ministry
Sunak ministry
Circa 30% of all PMs since 2010
...
Conservative staff accused MPs of focusing too much on ministerial business in a document accidentally emailed to party MPs by a senior campaigning figure at Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ).
The message had two attachments. One was a constituency breakdown with what appeared to be sanitised comments. The other had the unvarnished thoughts of Conservative staff. The email was later recalled.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/leaked-email-blames-tory-mps-general-election-2024-gz508ncd9 (£££)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-general-election-latest-news-live-rishi-sunak-keir-starmer-k3l8tgl5b (£££)
Lord Goldsmith, since you ask.
I understand the anger towards Sunak who has damaged the Party almost beyond repair and all but guaranteed the majority of his MPs will lose their job next month.
But it’s hard to muster much sympathy given that none of this would have happened without the complicity of a majority of the Party & what is now unfolding was entirely predictable- indeed predicted.
The hope is that when Sunak disappears off to California in a few weeks there are at least some decent MPs left around which to rebuild 🤞🙏🤞
Fantastic video of a journey from Shrewsbury to Welshpool on the National Cycling / Walking Network. Rail trails, canal towpaths, quiet lanes, with a bit of A-road. 41 miles.
Excellent observation and commentary along the way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT-prDPwvUk
Somewhat mischievously what do people think is a result that would keep Sunak safe as Tory leader. 250 seats? 275?
Edit: Sorry that was meant to be a reply to Sunak going to California.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
(I don't think linked videos count for your one-a-day...)
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/no-more-canal-tow-path-permits-needed/
Compare that to, say, tuition fees, where we know they need reform and it might work as a way of parking then finding away through an issue in the least contentious way possible.
You can't do that with a policy you are creating, then expect others to solve the problems with it.
And - as noted - the ultimate answer is for Russia to become a modern democracy. But that may take some time.
In the meantime it's going to be a new Iron Curtain at the border of Russia.
https://x.com/Telegraph/status/1795092957185360253
Well it's an improvement.